VoIP Location WGScope and goals

Develop a list of VoIP location data requirements (based on wireline/wireless and adapted for VoIP)

Devise / recommend a method for providing location information for residential VoIP customers

Specify interface (XML schema) for non-call setup associated location validation & updates

VoIP Location DataMethodology

Wireline/Wireless location data requirements as Basis (NENA 02-010, 02-011 and E911 Requirements)

Identify purpose & use of data elements by PSAPConsider context of remaining data elements in VoIP

architectures – I2 and I3 Identify any VoIP-specific needs Identify either: means to support location data

requirements in I2 and I3 or “holes” to be filled

Location Data RqmtsTimeline Objectives

TDC 3/0

4

TDC 3/0

4

TDC 3/0

5

TDC 3/0

5

Tampa6/05

Tampa6/05

Fall 9/0

5

Fall 9/0

5

Yr End12/04

Yr End12/04

VoIP Location Data Rqmts

draft TID

VoIP Location Data Rqmts

draft TID TID ready for

approval

TID ready for

approvalData Elem. identified

Data Elem. identified

Contrib. to IETF geopriv

WG

Contrib. to IETF geopriv

WG

VLWG forme

d

VLWG forme

d

Residential IPRequirements

At least equivalent functionality to traditional wireline service. Characteristics of traditional service include:Civil address (street address) provided –

virtually always available, and pre-validated by service provider

Fixed location (irrespective of caller’s actual movement, e.g., with “cordless” phone)

Residential IP (2)Classes of methods considered for

determination of locationManual entry by user into deviceProvisioned by Voice Service ProviderExternal, automated, assisted determination and

download of location object (e.g., DHCP server; broadcast from WiFi access point)

Device self-determination (e.g., GPS)

Residential IP (3)Methodology: Evaluate solutions in context of

overall requirements for phased architecturesVoIP Migratory WG (I2)

Elements/Interfaces affected by data requirementsVoIP Long Term Definition (I3)

How to support emergency callers with self-service VSP?

Objective for Planned Output of WGRecommendations documented in input to TID for fall

conference

Residential IP Task Timeline Objectives

TDC 3/0

4

TDC 3/0

4

TDC 3/0

5

TDC 3/0

5

Tampa6/05

Tampa6/05

Fall 9/0

5

Fall 9/0

5

Yr End12/04

Yr End12/04

VLWG forme

d

VLWG forme

d

Identify Alternatives & Evaluation

Criteria

Identify Alternatives & Evaluation

Criteria

PreliminaryFindings input

to VMWG & LTD

PreliminaryFindings input

to VMWG & LTD

Draft Recommen

d-ations

for Approval

Draft Recommen

d-ations

for Approval

Data Interface Task

VoIP Migratory and LTD WG output: interfaces to existing databases that need to be defined or recommended by VLWGALI to VoIP Positioning Center interface – e.g.,

E2+, PAM – no new work identified for VLWGNew near real-time Location Validation interface

needed

Loc. Validation I/FWork Plan

Elements involved in data exchangeDefine information flowsIdentify/specify protocol to be usedSecurity considerations

Working jointly with members of VMWG

Validation InterfaceTimeline Objectives

TDC 3/0

4

TDC 3/0

4

TDC 3/0

5

TDC 3/0

5

Tampa6/05

Tampa6/05

Fall 9/0

5

Fall 9/0

5

Yr End12/04

Yr End12/04

VLWG forme

d

VLWG forme

d

Validation interface – research

parameters, protocols

Validation interface – research

parameters, protocols Draft

proposalDraft

proposal

Interface description ready for approval

Interface description ready for approval

VLWG MembersNadine Abbott Paul Binder Anna Hastings

Mark Adler Patty Bluhm Steve Helme

Anand Akundi Rick Caldwell Tom Hicks

Erica Aubut Adrian Crayton Bill Horne

Tim Barry Marlys Davis Gary Hutchins

VLWG MembersRick Jones Roger Marshall Bill Schwartz

Dick Khan Donna Messineo

Amy Smith

Kim Leigh Tom Muelheisen Barb Thornburg

Mark Lewis Chris Peabody Nate Wilcox

Marc Linsner Brian Rosen Mike Vislocky

Nadine Abbott

Senior EngineerSAIC – Telcordia Technologies

RichardDickinson

Manager, Public SafetyTelecommunication Systems, Inc.

VoIP vs WirelessSimilar technical challenges

Access to local E911 infrastructureMobile callers

Similar technical solutionsCAS vs NCAS

VoIP Definitions

Static VoIP User: Caller who uses the same physical IP port at all times.

Nomadic VoIP User: Callers who change ports, but who are not necessarily wireless or in motion. Technology exists to locate a nomadic user.

Wireless VoIP User: Wireless VoIP devices already exist (WiFi), but location technology for wireless VoIP is not yet evolved.

Features of Proposed I2 Solution

Based on wireless NCAS concept No PSAP Upgrades Required

Works with 8-digit CAMAWorks with wireless “Phase 0” PSAPsWorks with Stand-alone ALI databases

No ALI Upgrades RequiredWorks with existing ALI connections, including E2, E2+,

NENA, PAM, and “push” No Selective Router Upgrades Required Works with mobile users

Challenge #1: MSAG Valid Addresses

Most VoIP addresses will be self-reported by user at time of log-in or at time of purchase

Not practical to require PSAPs to validate all user addresses, as they do with wireless cell sites.

Recommendation: Migratory committee exploring methods to validate addresses via access to centralized or distributed MSAG database

Challenge #2: ESRK Management

Use of wireline ESNs will require large numbers of ESQKs. Recommendation: Assign ESQKs to MPC vendors in lieu of

VoIP vendorsReduces required quantity of ESQKs (All VoIP

vendors share same ESQKs per PSAP)Simplifies single point of contact for PSAPs (MPC

NOC) Centralized authority for issuing ESQKs?

Challenge #3: Access to Selective Router

Most VoIP vendors do not have dedicated local access from TDM gateways to selective routers.

Recommendation: MPC providers or 3rd Party CLECs can provide TDM gateways and dedicated access to local selective routers

Questions

Dick DickinsonTelecommunication Systems Inc (TCS)

2200 Alaskan WaySeattle WA 98121

206-792-2224ddickinson@seattle.telecomsys.com