Re: draft-ietf-mmusic-sip-session-timer-00.txt

Jonathan Rosenberg <jdrosen@dnrc.bell-labs.com> Thu, 18 February 1999 04:42 UTC

Return-Path: <owner-confctrl>
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by zephyr.isi.edu (8.8.7/8.8.6) id UAA08104 for confctrl-outgoing; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 20:42:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tnt.isi.edu (tnt.isi.edu [128.9.128.128]) by zephyr.isi.edu (8.8.7/8.8.6) with ESMTP id UAA08099 for <confctrl@zephyr.isi.edu>; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 20:42:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dirty.research.bell-labs.com (dirty.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.6]) by tnt.isi.edu (8.8.7/8.8.6) with SMTP id UAA07496 for <confctrl@isi.edu>; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 20:42:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from couch.dnrc.bell-labs.com ([135.180.160.30]) by dirty; Wed Feb 17 23:40:10 EST 1999
Received: from dnrc.bell-labs.com (jdrosen.lra.lucent.com [135.17.249.249]) by couch.dnrc.bell-labs.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA03758; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 23:40:07 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <36CB9984.63B44E09@dnrc.bell-labs.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 23:39:32 -0500
From: Jonathan Rosenberg <jdrosen@dnrc.bell-labs.com>
Organization: Bell Laboratories
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Dean Willis <Dean.Willis@MCI.COM>
CC: Lewis McCarthy <lmccarth@cs.umass.edu>, Conference Control List <confctrl@ISI.EDU>
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-mmusic-sip-session-timer-00.txt
References: <003101be5ad2$545f0d20$05808acd@dwillispc3.mcit.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-confctrl@zephyr.isi.edu
Precedence: bulk

Dean Willis wrote:
> 
> How about renewing at 1/2 T, where T is the minimum time unit on the
> proxy chain. If T is greater than 1 minute or so, this should preclude
> accidental expirations as the renewal propagates. As T increases, this
> gives us a nice backoff on renewals . . .

I'm not sure we need to specify anything for this. Sending at 1/2T, then
3/2T, 5/2 T, etc., only delays the problem by T. What I mean is lets say
each proxy starts its timer when the response comes down the proxy
chain, at t=0. Now, the client resends at 1/2 T, which is fast enough to
refresh things. Now, each proxy expects to see the next before 3/2 T.
THe client sends at 3/2 T, but because of timing inconsistencies, packet
loss, clock skew, and latencies, it comes too late for some servers.

Instead, the interval should be treated as the frequency the client will
refresh at. Servers really should not time out a session unless no
refresh is received for 3/2 to 2 times this amount of time. Its like the
RTCP refresh interval. A user is not timed out in RTP unless they don't
send an RTCP packet for 5 times the interval. You need this to account
for losses, skew, and so on.

-Jonathan R.



-- 
Jonathan D. Rosenberg                       Lucent Technologies
Member of Technical Staff                   101 Crawfords Corner Rd.
High Speed Networks Research                Holmdel, NJ 07733
FAX: (732) 834-5379                         Rm. 4C-526
EMAIL: jdrosen@bell-labs.com
URL: http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~jdrosen