IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dispatch] PCP for SIP Deployments

"Parthasarathi R" <partha@parthasarathi.co.in> Fri, 27 February 2015 22:47 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 9D67D1A07BD for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 14:47:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.479
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.479 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, 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 w-2F3ks1cF2P for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 14:47:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from outbound.mailhostbox.com (outbound.mailhostbox.com [162.222.225.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B9EF1A07BC for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 14:47:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from userPC (unknown [122.167.76.6]) (Authenticated sender: partha@parthasarathi.co.in) by outbound.mailhostbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 84E16648189; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 22:47:40 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=parthasarathi.co.in; s=20120823; t=1425077263; bh=9kiaGYefXw7WepAuREQjKr4F4cg2JLZcGjJ/U3tOIOo=; h=From:To:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=SpCo8ZaUDJ5kMi+fXb6Q87YG/1lJIMMwWli1Lnbp2enW/qwTk9Pgp4D6CK6OE+3wS 2go+0pF9x0GCquZZzf75ujaO2ZEAvONUZ+KJPjY0QrkXe0uZp3gV4rKunj2bdqY/gY 3HyECLBbL9VUrHVKo3MMF9w6iIxmOujjj4yKDhd8=
From: Parthasarathi R <partha@parthasarathi.co.in>
To: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com, dispatch@ietf.org
References: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93300491577E@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
In-Reply-To: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93300491577E@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2015 04:17:29 +0530
Message-ID: <023901d052df$6056f2c0$2104d840$@co.in>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_023A_01D0530D.7A0F2EC0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AdBRpv5w7XTmu/weRVKc3+vCrIJ62gBNLj+A
Content-Language: en-us
X-CTCH-RefID: str=0001.0A020201.54F0F40F.00B5, 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
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dispatch/Onrfwcacvm7myMdVhJF4dT7_snc>
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: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 22:47:46 -0000

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] On Behalf Of
mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 3:02 PM
To: 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 

 

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email