[dispatch] PCP for SIP Deployments
<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Thu, 26 February 2015 09:31 UTC
Return-Path: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
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 950601A1BE3 for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 01:31:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham
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 e260_yf7W3z1 for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 01:31:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias91.francetelecom.com [193.251.215.91]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 76BBF1A1BDF for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 01:31:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from omfedm07.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.3]) by omfedm12.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id A46D018C48D; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 10:31:34 +0100 (CET)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme2.itn.ftgroup (unknown [10.114.31.56]) by omfedm07.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 53FD24C14E; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 10:31:34 +0100 (CET)
Received: from OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([169.254.2.231]) by OPEXCLILH04.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([10.114.31.56]) with mapi id 14.03.0224.002; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 10:31:34 +0100
From: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
To: "dispatch@ietf.org" <dispatch@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: PCP for SIP Deployments
Thread-Index: AdBRpv5w7XTmu/weRVKc3+vCrIJ62g==
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 09:31:34 +0000
Message-ID: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93300491577E@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.168.234.5]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93300491577EOPEXCLILM23corp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-PMX-Version: 6.0.3.2322014, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409, Antispam-Data: 2015.2.26.62419
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dispatch/t0cmhc30nYBcDc0cR2y8z4ZkXCE>
Subject: [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: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 09:31:38 -0000
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., [RFC7362<http://tools.ietf.org/html/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 [RFC4961<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4961>]. o Not require symmetric SIP to work (i.e., rport [RFC3581<http://tools.ietf.org/html/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