Re: [P2PSIP] RFC6940: Detecting Partitioning

Michael Chen <> Sun, 14 October 2018 22:25 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E74FC130DEC for <>; Sun, 14 Oct 2018 15:25:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.1
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_MIME_NO_HTML_TAG=0.377, MIME_HTML_ONLY=0.723, MISSING_MIMEOLE=1.899, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id q7TBTM4KH6ct for <>; Sun, 14 Oct 2018 15:25:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CDD2D12D4EA for <>; Sun, 14 Oct 2018 15:25:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ([]) by :SMTPAUTH: with ESMTPSA id Bopdgiry3Zb9HBopegMPZr; Sun, 14 Oct 2018 15:25:54 -0700
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2018 15:25:52 -0700
Message-ID: <>
X-Android-Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Michael Chen <>
To: Evgeny <>
Importance: Normal
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfMQj3ZacImES0kjo1flwyMeAf38qKvEv9/ev9tWVfMgqC/evUznqnRG0+nwi3mT81HVnR13+fYkh0fVcFKPmKKknMFJpAOqOSB9gL8RlTTBl+IuTBK3V m9Q4Wii/Ro63lyDcRz8U6xmbFO+Ok/zq+F7rkW3jbLGO5woGB0hilTEg+jzWykdbAgj5hhCfXyIWSRG3uy5zWWL1C//15Mcawto=
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] RFC6940: Detecting Partitioning
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Peer-to-Peer SIP working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2018 22:25:56 -0000

Let me take a look Monday.

I also noticed that you asked about test vectors back in May. I am one of the few that has a full implementation available for interoperability testing. Let's see if we can still organize one.


On Oct 14, 2018 12:04 PM, Evgeny <> wrote:
Hi there

I have hard time understanding the mechanism described in (Detecting Partitioning) [1]:

> P SHOULD then send a Ping for its own Node-ID routed through B.
> If a response is received from peer S', which is not P's successor,
> then the overlay is partitioned

How is it even possible? Given the Symmetric Recursive Routing, the Ping answer will always come from node B.
I tried to grasp through the RFC about special routing rules of Ping answers, but I didn't find anything special
except the statement in 6.1.2 (Other ID) [2] which I *fail* to understand:

> The node MUST implement support for
> returning responses to a Ping or Attach request made by a Joining
> Node Attaching to its responsible peer

"made by a Joining Node At taching to its responsible peer"? What does that mean exactly? Why is "Attaching"
with a capital letter?