Re: [Sip] outbound-08 : using different Contact URIs for different flows?

Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@cisco.com> Mon, 30 April 2007 03:53 UTC

Return-path: <sip-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HiMxa-0008H8-FO; Sun, 29 Apr 2007 23:53:58 -0400
Received: from sip by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1HiMxY-0008H0-CX for sip-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Apr 2007 23:53:56 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HiMxY-0008Gs-2z for sip@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Apr 2007 23:53:56 -0400
Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com ([64.102.122.148]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HiMxX-0001rk-PF for sip@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Apr 2007 23:53:56 -0400
Received: from rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com ([64.102.121.158]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 29 Apr 2007 23:53:55 -0400
X-IronPort-AV: i="4.14,467,1170651600"; d="scan'208"; a="58972784:sNHT50467136"
Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com (rtp-core-2.cisco.com [64.102.124.13]) by rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l3U3rtW9020451; Sun, 29 Apr 2007 23:53:55 -0400
Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id l3U3rilG005420; Mon, 30 Apr 2007 03:53:44 GMT
Received: from xfe-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.21]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sun, 29 Apr 2007 23:53:44 -0400
Received: from [10.86.240.132] ([10.86.240.132]) by xfe-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sun, 29 Apr 2007 23:53:44 -0400
Message-ID: <46356847.90306@cisco.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 23:53:43 -0400
From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (Windows/20070221)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jeroen van Bemmel <jbemmel@zonnet.nl>
Subject: Re: [Sip] outbound-08 : using different Contact URIs for different flows?
References: <00ad01c789a8$5de68d10$0601a8c0@BEMBUSTER>
In-Reply-To: <00ad01c789a8$5de68d10$0601a8c0@BEMBUSTER>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Apr 2007 03:53:44.0256 (UTC) FILETIME=[25F3E400:01C78ADB]
DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=2098; t=1177905235; x=1178769235; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim1001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=pkyzivat@cisco.com; z=From:=20Paul=20Kyzivat=20<pkyzivat@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[Sip]=20outbound-08=20=3A=20using=20different=20Conta ct=20URIs=20for=20different=0A=20flows? |Sender:=20 |To:=20Jeroen=20van=20Bemmel=20<jbemmel@zonnet.nl>; bh=r0nUlPQOsgp4Ik4Bg/G6MzN2gZPgivpnPFSDjLJV2AA=; b=nDh+DRGTr7pPU8iCQgO+a5w2+q2kWc8yr75QBgypaVLLHOw9YW3V9JOB83fVEKY86tCCdIFN hqbwWArBExipm42wz4+YKaV/1/x9EQVJinpeY34/QVERFtrpLJzdYumr;
Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-1; header.From=pkyzivat@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim1001 verified; );
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 50a516d93fd399dc60588708fd9a3002
Cc: sip@ietf.org, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>, Rohan Mahy <rohan@ekabal.com>
X-BeenThere: sip@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Session Initiation Protocol <sip.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip>, <mailto:sip-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:sip@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sip-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip>, <mailto:sip-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: sip-bounces@ietf.org

Jeroen,

Abstractly I understand your issue, and it seems valid, though I would 
like to think about it a bit.

But I'm trying to think of why you would want to do this. If a single UA 
registers multiple contacts with the same AOR, then it is pretty likely 
that incoming calls will be delivered to the UA multiple times. That 
seems like an undesirable situation.

	Paul

Jeroen van Bemmel wrote:
> All,
>  
> While trying to implement GRUU and outbound in combination, I stumbled 
> upon a minor issue: what if the UAC uses different Contact URIs when 
> registering multiple flows. The examples in outbound don't do this, but 
> there is no explicit statement that this is not allowed, and the example 
> in 3.2 (line1@192.168.0.2>;reg-id=1 
> <mailto:line1@192.168.0.2>;reg-id=1>) could be seen as suggesting that 
> the registration with reg-id=2 would use "line2"
>  
> See my previous mail: for GRUU this could mean that the authorative 
> proxy cannot select the right URI to rewrite with, there can be an 
> inconsistency between the temporary GRUU the UAC selected (associated 
> with a specific contact) and the request URI received.
>  
> One solution may be to adapt the algorithm used to generate temporary 
> GRUUs. A second option, which is perhaps simpler, is to simply state in 
> outbound that the UAC MUST use identical Contact URIs when registering 
> multiple flows (in section 4.2), and that the authoritative proxy MAY 
> select any one of the registered Contact URIs to rewrite with (e.g. 
> needed to cover transitional cases where the UAC obtains a new IP 
> address and starts re-registering)
>  
> Regards,
> Jeroen
>  
>  
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
> This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
> Use sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
> Use sipping@ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip


_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
Use sipping@ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip