3. Voice Over Internet Protocol
● “VoIP” a Broad term
● Grown to encompass multimedia, not
just voice
● Diverse protocols
○
some well defined standards, some de-facto,
some proprietary
● Used in a variety of networks
○
IPv4, IPv6, Public Internet, Private LANs, etc.
SI
P
5. Web Real Time Communications
● Plugin-less RTC Media engine in the
Browser
● Purpose built for the World Wide Web
● Collaborative W3C and IETF
standardization
● RTC as a feature, not necessarily the
service or application
13. WebRTC Mobility and Resilience:
More Needed
Web App has no control over network changes
• Rehydration - automatically reestablish
handover
App
App
Failure
Reconnect
App
lost sessions
• Restore call/session after browser
refresh/crash
• Network handoff
• Device handoff
14. Shifts in RTC: Create and Extend
RTC Extension, WebRTC enabling existing comms
WebRTC as a new edge access network
Network evolutions toward NFV, Telco-OTT
Security, Interoperability, Reliability
App creation toolkits for rapid service creation, prototyping
Media scaling, compliance
Advance session handling
Intro
Compare and contrast WebRTC, and VoIP as it’s deployed today.
The VoIP universe as it exists today is very diverse and vibrant.
VoIP began for many as IP networks began to prevail within the various galaxies
In many cases, VoIP was introduced for cost savings replacement to telco
VoIP saw fast growth in the early days in the Fixed line and business VoIP space…innovators like asterisk, vonage
Some of the more rapid expansion, by telco standards, is taking place in the mobile and UC arena.
It’s important to note that the network environments and requirements, the acronyms, the use of protocols…can all be very different
Begins with a singularity in focus: the Web
Rapid expansion
Relatively few endpoint types, accessed by JavaScript
Single largest install base of an interoperable RTC media stack
Rapid expansion like this is bound to cause some disruption
To understand where someone is going, you can look at where they’ve been
To begin to contrast the two, we can first look at what the user interface to the two worlds has been
These are harder to quantify and characterize
Undercurrents like bigger network vs. bigger client highlight this
While they are difficult to characterize, they manifest themselves in the technologies that align on one side or the other
As the two worlds collide once again, it is helpful to have a pragmatic appreciation for what each does well, and maybe not so well
Browser crashes, tab closes, or the network changes…what happens?
That’s a look at just a couple of specific challenges for those looking to bring VoIP/Telco like qualities to WebRTC…and vice-versa.
But there are major industry shifts taking place as a result of the gaps between VoIP, and the rapidly expanding WebRTC…things are happening to fill the void.
An immediate push for existing, traditional RTC services to extend what they do to the web.
This implies heavy requirements for elements with GW functionality
SBCs make a good choice as they are already deployed in many RTC architectures to handle things like security and compliance…WebRTC IWF becomes super-set of this
VoIP network architecture for a while has been moving toward virtualization, and becoming more web-like…this trend has likely seen acceleration as a result of WebRTC
On the web side, deployments will need robust tools and techniques, beyond the scope of a simple GW, or static web server, to handle the advance call scenarios like rehydration and mobility
Toolkits, toolkits, toolkits…those wanting rapid service creation and prototyping can do so with minimal investment
Web based services could be subject to compliance obligations, forcing them to scale and handle media
The tools of WebRTC will likely move outside of the “web” as well
So that provides on contrast of WebRTC and VoIP as it’s deployed in enterprises and service providers today
For you technologists, as these worlds expand, there is sure to be no shortages of unique, fun, technical challenges found where these universes collide and mesh.
