IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [martini] New text for gin section 7.1.1 first paragraph

Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan@acmepacket.com> Wed, 29 September 2010 20:52 UTC

Return-Path: <HKaplan@acmepacket.com>
X-Original-To: martini@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: martini@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 226963A6B6B for <martini@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Sep 2010 13:52:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.481
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.481 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.118, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id m9AUtN1P3pmy for <martini@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Sep 2010 13:52:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from etmail.acmepacket.com (etmail.acmepacket.com [216.41.24.6]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10E613A6AE8 for <martini@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Sep 2010 13:52:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.acmepacket.com (216.41.24.7) by etmail.acmepacket.com (216.41.24.6) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.254.0; Wed, 29 Sep 2010 16:52:49 -0400
Received: from mail.acmepacket.com ([127.0.0.1]) by mail ([127.0.0.1]) with mapi; Wed, 29 Sep 2010 16:52:45 -0400
From: Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan@acmepacket.com>
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 16:52:44 -0400
Thread-Topic: [martini] New text for gin section 7.1.1 first paragraph
Thread-Index: ActgGEQwqYide3SLRJeGfrv8Q7dLjg==
Message-ID: <C28AD4BA-0F23-451F-B941-905D77EAB58C@acmepacket.com>
References: <A444A0F8084434499206E78C106220CA01C81C2B32@MCHP058A.global-ad.net> <B1771F0F1F97A8478E2F449EA19CC7C5DA1A7EB3@ESESSCMS0365.eemea.ericsson.se> <A444A0F8084434499206E78C106220CA01C81C2D93@MCHP058A.global-ad.net> <F1A0ED6425368141998E077AC43334E425B8D6F6@gbplmail02.genband.com> <4CA21DF2.5080709@cisco.com> <DD8DA2BD-997C-420F-965F-98D9EEC7C6E9@acmepacket.com> <4CA23086.8010404@cisco.com> <F1A0ED6425368141998E077AC43334E425B8D7D5@gbplmail02.genband.com> <A444A0F8084434499206E78C106220CA01C829452C@MCHP058A.global-ad.net> <D32EE33B-4599-4DA0-96D4-A7054325C20C@acmepacket.com> <4CA29D07.3020203@cisco.com> <F1A0ED6425368141998E077AC43334E425B8DADA@gbplmail02.genband.com> <E928D7D5-31E8-44DA-BF0D-939CBED6355D@acmepacket.com> <F1A0ED6425368141998E077AC43334E425B8DB3E@gbplmail02.genband.com> <4CA387AE.4010200@cisco.com> <611CA167-6D68-4913-9D75-EFABC93B4FC1@acmepacket.com> <4CA39810.3080402@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <4CA39810.3080402@nostrum.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "martini@ietf.org" <martini@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [martini] New text for gin section 7.1.1 first paragraph
X-BeenThere: martini@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of en-mass SIP PBX registration mechanisms <martini.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/martini>, <mailto:martini-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/martini>
List-Post: <mailto:martini@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:martini-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/martini>, <mailto:martini-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 20:52:06 -0000

On Sep 29, 2010, at 3:48 PM, Adam Roach wrote:

>  On 09/29/2010 02:30 PM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
>> If an enterprise like Acme uses GIN with SSP-X and Cisco uses GIN with 
>> SSP-Y, do you think Cisco can use a URI like 
>> "sip:+17813284428@acme.ssp-x.com;gr=urn:uuid:f81d4fae-7dec-11d0-a765-00a0c91e6bf6;sg=00:05:03:5e:70:a6" 
>> if it got one from Acme somehow? [...]SSP-Y won't be able to route 
>> that URI.
> 
> Why not?

Because (1) SSP-Y would have to be willing to route sip requests across the Internet, (2) SSP-Y's sip systems would have to use the public DNS, (3) SSP-X's systems would have to be in the public DNS, (4) SSP-X would have to be willing to accept requests from SSP-Y, (5) SSP-Y would have to not replace the request-uri as it does the routing to SSP-X.  Odds of all of those things being the case: very low.

-hadriel

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email