Christopher, How are you. I hope you are well, and that your wife and baby are doing fine. Is this the same John Combs formerly of ITS in Kentucky??? If so, Cisco made another good hire!!
Rick >>> Christopher Saleem <[email protected]> 04/29/99 10:37AM >>> I got this today. >X-SMAP-Received-From: outside >From: "Tung, Tailey" <[email protected]> >To: "'[email protected]'" <[email protected]>, > "'[email protected]'" <[email protected]>, > "Tung; Tailey" <[email protected]>, [email protected], > [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], > [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], > [email protected], [email protected], > [email protected], [email protected], > [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], > [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], > [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], > [email protected], [email protected], > [email protected] >Cc: "'[email protected]'" <[email protected]> >Subject: RE: E911 & Virtual PBX >Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 10:08:24 -0700 >X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) > >Phil, TR41.3.4 Chair > >You may be interested to read the following emails from John Comb of Cisco >expressing concerns of E911 compliance on internet or virtual PBX. > >As internet E911 caller location identification will involve I think at >least the following 4 areas: >1. Charging / billing and security. >2. Configurations and interfaces. >3. Call control procedures and information flow. >4. Naming & address translation issues. > >Do you have any plan or resources to include E911 compliance in your working >group for voice over IP products? > >Sincerely > >Tailey >TR41.1 Chair > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] [SMTP:[email protected]] >> Sent: Thursday, April 29, 1999 7:49 AM >> To: Tung; Tailey; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; >> [email protected]; [email protected]; >> [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; >> [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; >> [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; >> [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; >> [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; >> [email protected]; [email protected]; >> [email protected] >> Subject: RE: E911 & Virtual PBX >> >> Tailey and all, >> >> Two comments to John's email: >> >> 1. The responsibility for compliance to the laws fall on the user of the >> premise. Any direct compulsory requirement on the manufacturer will come >> as a >> result of an FCC action that never seems to come. >> >> 2. The problem of location identity of an IP caller is, although >> technically >> different, not unlike the challenges of wireless location. In either case >> there >> is no finite terminal endpoint location fixed that can be reliably used >> for >> location, and the used can move about the facility without the system >> easily >> determining where they are now connected. Further, in both cases it is >> possible >> because of the standardization of the interfaces that the terminals are >> not of >> the same manufacturer as the controller. >> >> As I strongly suggested in the last TR41.1.9 meeting, the WG needs to >> define a >> set of parameters (i.e., how accurate does the location have to be) and >> request >> the relevant sub-committees (TR41.6 for wireless & TR41.3 for IP) to start >> a >> work item to meet these anticipated needs. >> >> Best Regards, >> Paul Weismantel >> NEC America, Inc. >> 1555 W. Walnut Hill Lane >> Irving, TX 75038 >> Tel: (972) 518-3834 >> Fax: (972) 518-4689 >> Mobile: (214) 244-7841 >> email: [email protected] >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: "Tung; Tailey" <[email protected]> at Internet >> Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 1999 4:11 PM >> To: Weismantel, Paul; Parker, Jim; [email protected] at Internet; >> [email protected] at Internet; [email protected] at Internet; >> [email protected] at Internet; [email protected] at >> Internet; [email protected] at Internet; [email protected] at >> Internet; [email protected] at Internet; [email protected] at >> Internet; [email protected] at Internet; [email protected] >> at Internet; [email protected] at Internet; [email protected] >> at Internet; [email protected] at Internet; [email protected] at >> Internet; [email protected] at Internet; [email protected] at >> Internet; [email protected] at Internet; [email protected] >> at Internet; [email protected] at Internet; [email protected] >> at Internet; [email protected] at Internet >> Subject: RE: E911 & Virtual PBX >> >> >> Hi Tony & John, >> >> The virtual PBX or internet PBX etc.... mentioned by John is not new in >> Silicon Valley. What we need is input from the manufacturers of this type >> of products (such as Cisco / Selsius) who may already had solutions to >> resolve the E911 internet caller location problem to help TIA E911 working >> group to come up with the acceptable industry standard. >> >> John, >> >> Do you think you can provide input from Cisco / Selsius to TIA to start >> the >> drafting of E911 requirements for virtual PBX products? >> >> >> TR41.1 members, >> >> Please provide input to TR41.1.9 for Tony and his working group to study >> the >> possibility of writing E911 standard for virtual PBX or Voice over IP >> products. >> >> Sincerely >> >> Tailey >> TR41.1 Chair >> >> >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Caggiano, Anthony G (Tony) [SMTP:[email protected]] >> > Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 1999 10:57 AM >> > To: Adams, Dan; Bal, Ajmer; Balinski, John; Berestecky, Chuck; >> Bishop, >> > Trone; Chaklashiya, Kumar; Chrostowski, Bob; Combs, John; Frank, Dick; >> > Green, John H.; Havens, Phillip; Lawler, Tim; Lockard, Dorothy; Mar, >> > Henry; Melton, Pete; Miyamoto, Yoshi; Needham, John; Panko, Richard; >> > Parker, Jim; Saleem, Christopher; Tung, Tailey; Weismantel, Paul J.; >> Wong, >> > Tony >> > Subject: E911 & Virtual PBX >> > >> > All, >> > Attached is email I received earlier this month from John Combs. >> > Please review it, especially the proposal concerning work items for our >> > Group, and we can discuss it at our next meeting. >> > Regards, Tony Caggiano >> > >> > > From: John Combs[SMTP:[email protected]] >> > > Sent: Thursday, April 08, 1999 7:24 PM >> > > To: Caggiano, Anthony G (Tony) >> > > Subject: E911 & the Virtual PBX >> > > >> > > Tony, >> > > >> > > In terms of asking questions about E911 compliance here at Cisco, >> lately >> > > I've been the "squeaky wheel," and the result of that was that I was >> > told >> > > to "grease myself," i.e., do the research and make suggestions. <g> >> > > >> > > As I'm sure you're aware of, we're on the verge of a radical change in >> > PBX >> > > design, resulting in what I will refer to as a "virtual" PBX. For my >> > > purposes, a "conventional" PBX is a cabinet with a bunch of cards in >> it, >> > > and has trunks that connect to the PSTN, and lines that connect to >> > > stations. The Cisco/Selsius IP PBX is a good example of a "virtual" >> > PBX. >> > > The "heart" of the Selsius virtual PBX is a software package named >> Call >> > > Manager, which runs on a WinNT Server PC with an installed Ethernet >> > card. >> > > >> > > When a user makes a call from a Selsius IP telephone, it contacts thep >> > Call >> > > Manager via Ethernet and gives the called party telephone number. The >> > > Call >> > > Manager looks up the called telephone number in a database, and >> replies >> > to >> > > the calling telephone with an IP address for the called number. At >> this >> > > point the Call Manager "bows out" and the calling telephone contacts >> the >> > > next device directly. >> > > >> > > Now, that IP number might be for another Selsius IP telephone on the >> > local >> > > network, then we simply have an Ethernet connection between the two >> > > phones. The IP number might be another Selsius IP telephone on a >> > remote >> > > network, then one or more routers will route the IP packets to the >> > called >> > > telephone. >> > > >> > > But if the called telephone number is on the PSTN, the Call Manger >> will >> > > reply to the calling IP telephone with an IP number that belongs to a >> > > "gateway" device. The gateway has an Ethernet port, as well as PSTN >> > > ports, >> > > such as voice T1, ISDN BRI or PRI, or even analog ports such as CO >> lines >> > > or >> > > E&M lines. The gateway does the PSTN connection for the IP telephone. >> > > Please note that the gateway doesn't have to be a Selsius product -- >> it >> > > could be a standard Cisco router, since nearly all of them now have >> > "voice >> > > module" options to connect to the PSTN. The gateway might even be a >> > > router >> > > from a different manufacturer. Just to further complicate things, the >> > > VoIP >> > > "telephone" could just as easily be a multimedia PC running Microsoft >> > > Netmeeting. >> > > >> > > So, there is a real possibility that the only part of this "virtual" >> PBX >> > > that would be provided by Cisco would be the Call Manager software -- >> no >> > > hardware whatsoever! >> > > >> > > Now, let's consider E911 compliance. I know from our earlier >> > conversation >> > > that Illinois has tried to target *hardware* for compliance with the >> > law, >> > > i.e., PBX's are targeted, but key systems are not. I also assume that >> > > most >> > > state laws are trying to enforce compliance by holding the PBX *owner* >> > > (not >> > > the manufacturer) responsible, I suppose with the assumption that >> > > businesses will simply refuse to buy non-compliant PBX hardware and >> thus >> > > drive the market in the correct direction. >> > > >> > > So, in the case of a virtual PBX, do you suppose that the law would >> > assume >> > > that the PBX is the "gateway" hardware that directly connects to the >> > PSTN? >> > > There is even a possibility that the gateway which connects to PSTN >> > lines >> > > could be located in a state other than Illinois! Or that the business >> > > doesn't even *own* a hardware gateway, and that they're sending their >> IP >> > > packets to a local ISP acting as a local telephone provider, and the >> > local >> > > ISP owns the hardware gateway that interfaces to the PSTN! In the >> > > situation where the ISP owns the hardware gateway, and the local >> > business >> > > owns the Call Manager software, who is responsible for E911 >> compliance, >> > > i.e., who "owns" the virtual PBX? >> > > >> > > So, in the case of the Ilinois law, if a business owned Call Manager >> and >> > > some VoIP telephones, but don't own their own hardware gateway to the >> > > PSTN, do you suppose that they are "exempt" from that E911 law, and >> the >> > responsibility for compliance is shifted to the owner of the gateway, >> > > perhaps an ISP? What about the Kentucky law which I think you said is >> > > based on a "dispersal" issue? >> > > >> > > As you can see, things get "ugly" very quickly when you start delving >> > into >> > > these issues. I know that Tailey Tung was talking about "disbanding" >> > your >> > > TR-41.1.9 subcommittee after finishing up the ISDN E911 issue, but I >> > think >> > > that it might make sense to instead immediately start working on a new >> > > project, perhaps called "E911 for Virtual PBXs." I think that some >> sort >> > > of >> > > interoperability guideline needs to be written so that manufacturers >> can >> > > ensure that a virtual PBX made up from hardware and software from >> > multiple >> > > manufacturers can handle an E911 call in some fashion. >> > > >> > > What do you think about all this? >> > > >> > > Oh, could you suggest a Web URL that might help me with determining >> what >> > > states currently have E911 laws, or are likely to soon adopt them? >> > > >> > > >> > > -------------------------------- >> > > John Combs >> > > Senior Telecom Engineer >> > > Corporate Compliance Department >> > > CISCO SYSTEMS >> > > Phone : +1 408 525-4910 >> > > Fax : +1 408 526-8348 >> > > Email : [email protected] >> > > 170 West Tasman Drive >> > > Mail Stop SJ-F/1 >> > > San Jose, CA 95134-1706 >> > > -------------------------------- >> > > >> > > >> > >
