Re: [dispatch] PCP for SIP Deployments
"Parthasarathi R" <partha@parthasarathi.co.in> Wed, 11 March 2015 00:34 UTC
Return-Path: <partha@parthasarathi.co.in>
X-Original-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16FDF1A90C6 for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Mar 2015 17:34:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.678
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.678 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id C6wc4byWBvFK for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Mar 2015 17:34:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outbound.mailhostbox.com (outbound.mailhostbox.com [162.222.225.29]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52B491A90C3 for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Mar 2015 17:34:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from userPC (unknown [122.178.207.235]) (Authenticated sender: partha@parthasarathi.co.in) by outbound.mailhostbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id A833E869635; Wed, 11 Mar 2015 00:34:44 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=parthasarathi.co.in; s=20120823; t=1426034090; bh=hX++omaNY97f5sH4kvA5BtyOFO6E/1x6L0+b1bTJ/7A=; h=From:To:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=hprxDRJYBi/dNfxn8nvvfH1Rr3DgJeCADrT1Q5QRezU9jS6KLjpDLWyyBizz7jcZV iCardKiWjJMPd+sePJHf+TtABWnWg2aqjKwQxboX5BEnqUqmRhiFyDaqNzLGVKfy+I oXDEGM/ZrTMLa262ovsqNkCrfT8zg4Mo3RFvhA4o=
From: Parthasarathi R <partha@parthasarathi.co.in>
To: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com, dispatch@ietf.org
References: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933004924E01@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
In-Reply-To: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933004924E01@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 06:04:37 +0530
Message-ID: <012e01d05b93$2c1e2e80$845a8b80$@co.in>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_012F_01D05BC1.45D66A80"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AdBXLaVKHLIA7f4lSRmkPUaU5jCunwEZWgqA
Content-Language: en-us
X-CTCH-RefID: str=0001.0A020202.54FF8DAA.0186, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0
X-CTCH-VOD: Unknown
X-CTCH-Spam: Unknown
X-CTCH-Score: 0.000
X-CTCH-Rules:
X-CTCH-Flags: 0
X-CTCH-ScoreCust: 0.000
X-CTCH-SenderID: partha@parthasarathi.co.in
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalMessages: 1
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalSpam: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalSuspected: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalBulk: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalConfirmed: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalRecipients: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalVirus: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-BlueWhiteFlag: 0
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.72 on 172.18.214.93
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dispatch/2yqzFsOCf9ijCstSOtiPRA9RZsI>
Subject: Re: [dispatch] PCP for SIP Deployments
X-BeenThere: dispatch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: DISPATCH Working Group Mail List <dispatch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dispatch/>
List-Post: <mailto:dispatch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 00:34:56 -0000
Hi Med, The updated version looks good. Thanks Partha From: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com [mailto:mohamed.boucadair@orange.com] Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2015 3:48 PM To: Parthasarathi R; dispatch@ietf.org Subject: RE: [dispatch] PCP for SIP Deployments Hi Partha, Thank you for the feedback. I understand more your comment about ICE. I updated the draft accordingly. Please check the new version and the diff: URL: <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-boucadair-pcp-sip-ipv6-05.txt> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-boucadair-pcp-sip-ipv6-05.txt Status: <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-boucadair-pcp-sip-ipv6/> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-boucadair-pcp-sip-ipv6/ Htmlized: <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-boucadair-pcp-sip-ipv6-05> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-boucadair-pcp-sip-ipv6-05 Diff: <http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-boucadair-pcp-sip-ipv6-05> http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-boucadair-pcp-sip-ipv6-05 Thank you. Cheers, Med De : Parthasarathi R [mailto:partha@parthasarathi.co.in] Envoyé : jeudi 5 mars 2015 01:21 À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN; dispatch@ietf.org Objet : RE: [dispatch] PCP for SIP Deployments Hi Med, Thanks for incorporating the comments. ICE is used in the context of SIP over WebSocket (RFC 7118) & WebRTC SDP profile within managed networks. TURN has its own limitation in traversing NAT/FW using UDP transport in case of managed networks. PCP server in NAT &FW resolves these issues. Of course, the current implementations (WebRTC devices) have challenges in using ICE + PCP but IMO, it is good have for future works. Thanks Partha From: <mailto:mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> mohamed.boucadair@orange.com [ <mailto:mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> mailto:mohamed.boucadair@orange.com] Sent: Monday, March 02, 2015 9:56 PM To: Parthasarathi R; <mailto:dispatch@ietf.org> dispatch@ietf.org Subject: RE: [dispatch] PCP for SIP Deployments Hi Partha, Many thanks for the review and the comments. I integrated almost all your suggestion, except the one about the ICE discussion. The reason for that is ICE is not deployed in the managed context; as such Im afraid there is no value in having such discussion in the I-D. Please check the diff and let me know if you have further comments. URL: <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-boucadair-pcp-sip-ipv6-04.txt> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-boucadair-pcp-sip-ipv6-04.txt Status: <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-boucadair-pcp-sip-ipv6/> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-boucadair-pcp-sip-ipv6/ Htmlized: <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-boucadair-pcp-sip-ipv6-04> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-boucadair-pcp-sip-ipv6-04 Diff: <http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-boucadair-pcp-sip-ipv6-04> http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-boucadair-pcp-sip-ipv6-04 Thank you. Cheers, Med De : Parthasarathi R [ <mailto:partha@parthasarathi.co.in> mailto:partha@parthasarathi.co.in] Envoyé : vendredi 27 février 2015 23:47 À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN; <mailto:dispatch@ietf.org> dispatch@ietf.org Objet : RE: [dispatch] PCP for SIP Deployments Hi Med, It is a interesting draft. The current writing provides PCP advantages in SIP managed network and particularly cellular. The following information has to be added to provide more clarity about this work: 1) Network diagram/topology with SIP UA, SIP proxy/B2BUA, PCP client, PCP server 2) Basic callflow to show how the dialog is established in case P2P is used 3) The draft title mentions IPv6. My understanding is that this shall be used for IPv4 network as well. 4) Add more details about how SIP, PCP, ICE interworking happens as the current reference is related to PCP with rtcweb only. 5) Security implication w.r.t SIP usage of PCP has to be mentioned. 6) Advantage of using PCP over TURN in SIP network shall be provided in the introduction section for better comparison. Regards Partha From: dispatch [ <mailto:dispatch-bounces@ietf.org> mailto:dispatch-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of <mailto:mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> mohamed.boucadair@orange.com Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 3:02 PM To: <mailto:dispatch@ietf.org> dispatch@ietf.org Subject: [dispatch] PCP for SIP Deployments Hi all, I would like to share with this group a short document that explains how PCP can be of great use in the context SIP-based services: <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-boucadair-pcp-sip-ipv6-03> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-boucadair-pcp-sip-ipv6-03 As indicated in the I-D, the main benefits include (but not limited to): o Avoid embedding an ALG in the middleboxes. Note, ALGs are not recommended since the evolution of the service would depend on the ALG maintenance. o Not require any Hosted NAT Traversal function (e.g., [ <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7362> RFC7362]) to be embedded in the SIP server. Intermediate NATs and firewalls are transparent to the SIP service platform. o Avoid overloading the network with keepalive message to maintain the mapping in intermediate middleboxes. o Work without requiring symmetric RTP/RTCP [ <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4961> RFC4961]. o Not require symmetric SIP to work (i.e., rport [ <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3581> RFC3581]). o Easily support unidirectional sessions. When this document was first presented in the PCP WG, I was suggested that it is better to publish it in RAI with a review from the PCP WG. Hence, this message to the list. Cheers, Med
- [dispatch] PCP for SIP Deployments mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [dispatch] PCP for SIP Deployments Parthasarathi R
- Re: [dispatch] PCP for SIP Deployments mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [dispatch] PCP for SIP Deployments Parthasarathi R
- Re: [dispatch] PCP for SIP Deployments mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [dispatch] PCP for SIP Deployments Cullen Jennings
- Re: [dispatch] PCP for SIP Deployments Parthasarathi R
- Re: [dispatch] PCP for SIP Deployments Parthasarathi R
- Re: [dispatch] PCP for SIP Deployments mohamed.boucadair