For voice, interoperability has always been, to a degree, assumed. Voice interoperability between brands of phone systems, carriers, and associated equipment is well established. The limitations associated with proprietary phones and features between sites are generally accepted and limit rather than disable interoperability. To a lesser degree, the same can be said for video systems. The longstanding H.323 video conferencing standard allows reasonably seamless video integration among major brands.
Yet, Jonathan Edwards of IDC recently said "One of the most significant factors impeding UC adoption today is the lack of interoperability assurance for customers between their existing and pending communications and networking investments and purchases."
Zeus Kerravala of the Yankee Group recently wrote : "Interoperability, standards and openness...has been a big problem, continues to be a big problem and will be one of the main reasons our industry crawls instead of runs."
Interoperability is not as distant as one might conclude from these quotes, though it is a vastly misunderstood problem. It turns out that interoperability is more of a networking and user issue than a technical one, thanks to reasonably mature and widespread codecs and protocols. Assuring broader interoperability across platforms, networks, and organizations is the challenge recently adopted by the newly created Unified Communications Interoperability Forum (UCIF).
Despite the dreams of many enterprise vendors, it seems organizations are determined to combine components from more than one vendor to implement custom UC solutions. The challenge lies in routing, dial plans, firewall traversals, authentication, and other networking controls. Also, workflow and user interfaces keep interoperability a front-burner conversation.
There are two kinds of interoperability. The first one, and what generally comes to mind, is where two vendors meet a specification and "should" work together. This approach is plagued with networking nuances and compromises.
The other approach is where vendors examine the workflow, and they design, test, and optimize products and services to deliver a standards-based comprehensive experience.
This latter approach, and the one that the UCIF is taking, is where the largest opportunity lies. This is also the most difficult, because while there are industry standards in place, there are almost limitless scenarios where interoperability is not clearly defined.
Jeff Rodman, a board member for the UCIF and CTO/co-founder of Polycom, explains: "The UCIF is about making the pie bigger rather than giving any one vendor a bigger piece of the pie. Our goal is to expand the opportunity for customers to seamlessly deploy extended UC networks with confidence." In the meantime, Rodman says Polycom has been actively working with multiple partners to develop native integration between Polycom solutions and those of its partners.
Consider the recent launch of Polycom Conferencing for Outlook, from Microsoft and Polycom (two of the founders behind the UCIF). These two firms worked together to make their sometimes competitive products more useful in a heterogeneous environment.
The solution allows Outlook/Exchange users to schedule and join conferences with one click, using technologies and endpoints from both companies. It provides an integrated solution from an Outlook workflow perspective and allows users to easily set up, join, and record a video conference. The conference can also be stored and published in a searchable format in SharePoint; all by a few clicks within Outlook.The magic part of this solution is the typical Outlook user just gets it. The fact it inolves multiple vendors is effectively hidden.
This was one of the fruits of the Polycom Open Collaboration Network (POCN). Polycom created this strategy to improve interoperability capabilities among its partners. The POCN existed before the UCIF was formed, and now includes partnerships with Avaya, Siemens, Microsoft, HP, Juniper, Broadsoft, and IBM (all but Avaya and IBM subsequently joined the UCIF).
Polycom enjoys more partnerships with UCIF member companies than any other founder, and the POCN takes standards-based solutions to the next level; one where vendors collaborate on interoperability.
In addition to the Microsoft Outlook solution, another example out of Polycom’s network is with IBM. This solution enables Lotus Sametime and Notes users to launch instant voice and/or video sessions. The feature integrates IBM's servers with Polycom's desktop, room, and telepresence systems using industry standards.
Will the UCIF eliminate the need for Polycom’s Open Collaboration Network? Unlikely, Rodman said: "The UCIF validates our approach, it formalizes and expands collaboration broader than Polycom can alone. However, its focus will be broad and industry-wide, while we'll leverage the Polycom Open Collaboration Network to deliver natively integrated solutions built upon our portfolio and those of our partners."
Video Interoperability Challenges
One big upcoming challenge for video vendors will be integrating desktop video solutions to traditional boardroom video solutions. Most boardroom systems use H.323/H.261, whereas desktop protocols and codecs are far more varied.
Historically, video vendors achieved interoperability with gateways, but this adds latency and cost, and limits scalability. The better answer is direct native multi-protocol support in the endpoints. Polycom offers a dual stack implementation of its VVX 1500 Media Phone supporting both SIP and H.323 sessions as well as a version optimized for Cisco's Unified Communication Manager.
Radvision took a unique approach with its SCOPIA solution by embracing H.239 for multi-channel communications focusing on the collaboration aspect of video conferencing. This new solution extends video and supporting materials to the users of Apple mobile products. It gives the mobile user (or any client supporting H.239) the ability to control and flip through prior slides.
Although H.239 is an ITU standard, some other technology approaches being pursued by desktop video vendors are complicating the interoperability problem.
Microsoft is using its own RT-Video codec while Skype is using both IP7 and H.264 for hardware-based HD videoconferencing. Skype's IP7 video codec is now controlled by Google, which is transitioning it to a royalty-free model with IP8, known as WebM. Skype does utilize H.264 for video compression, but relies on proprietary signaling over SIP. LifeSize licensed Skype's signaling to achieve Skype interoperability, but this approach isn't likely to receive broad industry support.
Google's IP8 isn't the only royalty free technology option; as a result of the Cisco/Tandberg merger, the European Commission required Cisco to divest ownership of its TelePresence Interoperability Protocol (TIP) which is now a royalty-free technology awaiting working group assignment. Several companies such as Polycom and Radvision intend to adopt TIP to improve integration with Cisco's solutions, but there is no indication TIP will be adopted for video solutions that don't involve Cisco equipment.
Another interesting trend to watch will be the migration from the H.264 "Baseline" profile to the H.264 High Profile standard. While both profiles are encompassed by ITU H.264, only the Baseline profile has been broadly adopted. The advantage of the High Profile implementation is network efficiency gains: H.264 High Profile only requires about half the bit rate of the Baseline implementation.
Conclusion
The problem of interoperability is not temporary. Heterogeneous environments are likely a fixture of the enterprise for the foreseeable future, compounded by ever-changing technologies and morphing customer requirements. The best solution is for enterprise organizations to weight standards heavily and demand their vendors develop and test implementations that can be translated into supported customer experiences.
Not all vendors are building their own collaboration networks or even joining the UCIF. But in any event, interoperability requires far more than lip service, it takes deliberate actions, steps, and funds, as well as acceptance of the harsh reality that single vendor solutions do not consistently meet end-user requirements.
Dave Michels is a frequent contributor and blogs regularly about Telecom at PinDropSoup.
