home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!sun-barr!cs.utexas.edu!torn!cunews!revcan!software.mitel.com!grayt
- From: grayt@Software.Mitel.COM (Tom Gray)
- Newsgroups: comp.dcom.cell-relay
- Subject: Re: Future of IP routers
- Message-ID: <12715@grayt>
- Date: 28 Aug 92 15:12:13 GMT
- References: <1992Aug26.095756.5247@ccsun.strath.ac.uk> <BtLKKH.CJ6@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>
- Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.
- Lines: 38
-
- In article <BtLKKH.CJ6@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> robelr@mythos.ucs.indiana.edu writes:
- >In article <1992Aug26.095756.5247@ccsun.strath.ac.uk>
- >craa85@ccsun.strath.ac.uk ( D.W.Stevenson) writes:
- >> type. This will remove the requirement to send video/audio traffic via a
- >router,
- >> because the video/audio AAL entities will connect directly with the
- >video/audio
- >> AAL entities at the other end.
- >
- >Which means that the filtering functionality currently available
- >in routers gets pushed out to end nodes and is carried out
- >at call setup? I'm not sure that I'm comfortable with this
- >sort of arrangement. Take a hypothetical situation where,
- >as a part of organizational policy--possibly for budgetary
- >reasons--users should be denied access to interactive video
- >communication outside of a given administrative domain but
-
- The problem that you have described is handled even now
- fro voice communications by PBX's. Users can be denied
- access, can be granted access only to cheaper services
- ,can be granted access on a time of day basis etc.
- etc. etc.
-
- There is no prblem in handling such restrictions and even
- more complicated restrictions at call set up.
-
-
-
-
-
-
- .
- .
- .
- .
-
- --
- i.sinature
-