[Spce-user] SPCE v3 - reseller gui

[Gavin Sweet]

IMHO, we will probably all have different reseller models, not as simple as
just reselling "switch access".

I think the ideal would be what we see in other service platforms, where
there is a role-based security model that can be configured with some
granularity, so as to chose what read/write access each account should have.

For instance:
- You might only want a "reseller" (or one of their user accounts) to simply
see subscribers within the customer, and allow password resets or voicemail
email resets (classic support actions).
- You might want a reseller account with admin access to api (or not).
- We definitely wouldn't want our resellers to have access to any of the
configuration that can affect routeing (peer setup, re-write rules etc)
because we want that locked down by us (we would event want it to be
visible).

I'm sure we all have other real use cases that warrant more granular
permissions.

Thanks
Gavin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: spce-user-bounces at lists.sipwise.com [mailto:spce-user-
> bounces at lists.sipwise.com] On Behalf Of Skyler
> Sent: 24 August 2013 11:09
> To: spce-user at lists.sipwise.com
> Subject: Re: [Spce-user] SPCE v3 - reseller gui
> 
> Hi,
> 
>   Not really fraud, more like a bad routing decision that could kill a
> hosts SLA. In a case where the callee is indeed local, but forced out a
> peer (that he can't see) by the reseller (accidental, misunderstanding
> the setting), the call flow would loop back:
> 
> UA > my-spce > forced_outbound_peer > pstn > inbound_provider > my-spce
> > UA
> 
>   Just seems like a waste to tie up an inbound channel when the callee
> was local.
> 
>   Example: say we have 80 channels and that costs X amount to have
> those available, if all channels are taken then service levels are in
> question. If a reseller with 80 subscribers has his domain configured
> to force all outbound to a peer (of which he has no idea about), then
> we have a huge problem (when 80 ppl are on the phone at once) as our 80
> channels will be tied up and cost the host more than just money...it
> hurts overall service levels for all resellers/subscribers on the host
> system.
> 
>   Or maybe I'm just thinking too hard ;)
> 
> 
> --Skyler
> 
> On 08/24/2013 02:35 AM, Andreas Granig wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 08/24/2013 02:44 AM, wrote:
> >>   Not sure if this would be a bug per se, but could be dangerous if
> I
> >> understand correctly. When viewing reseller domain preferences,
> while
> >> logged in as a reseller admin; I see options for peer preferences
> >> which could override what is intended by the primary host. Example
> is
> >> force_outbound_calls_to_peer. Since reseller does not have any peer
> >> controls, could this be a fault which may cause the primary host a
> >> problem with costs?
> >
> > Well, these preferences control whether or not to keep the call local
> > or send them via peers, regardless of the callee being local or not.
> > It's the reseller's responsibility to set them correctly to get the
> > desired behaviour. I don't think there is an issue with costs here
> > because the reseller is being charged for those calls (of course
> > depending on the billing profile you assign to him).
> >
> > Can you describe a particular use case where this could lead to
> > billing/fraud issues for me to understand your concerns better?
> >
> > Andreas
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Spce-user mailing list
> > Spce-user at lists.sipwise.com
> > http://lists.sipwise.com/listinfo/spce-user
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Spce-user mailing list
> Spce-user at lists.sipwise.com
> http://lists.sipwise.com/listinfo/spce-user
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3211/6611 - Release Date:
> 08/26/13