Re: [SIP] authentication at gateway
Jonathan Rosenberg <jdrosen@dynamicsoft.com> Sun, 09 July 2000 03:56 UTC
Received: from lists.bell-labs.com ([204.178.16.58]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA13584 for <sip-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 23:56:29 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2221443EB; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 23:55:45 -0400 (EDT)
Delivered-To: sip@lists.bell-labs.com
Received: from redball.dynamicsoft.com (redball.dynamicsoft.com [216.173.40.51]) by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BF91443A6 for <sip@lists.bell-labs.com>; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 23:55:41 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from dynamicsoft.com (1Cust27.tnt3.freehold.nj.da.uu.net [63.25.172.27]) by redball.dynamicsoft.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.10.0.Beta12) with ESMTP id XAA22756; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 23:56:52 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <3967F856.EBED41A6@dynamicsoft.com>
Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2000 23:58:14 -0400
From: Jonathan Rosenberg <jdrosen@dynamicsoft.com>
Organization: dynamicsoft
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Culpepper, Bert" <bert.culpepper@intervoice-brite.com>
Cc: Henry Sinnreich <Henry.Sinnreich@WCom.com>, "Gardell, Steve" <sgardell@gte.com>, Serban Tatu <statu@starvision.com>, siplist <sip@lists.bell-labs.com>
Subject: Re: [SIP] authentication at gateway
References: <DBD1CC7CE357D211AECC009027158FD102D3D3D1@itmail-ict1-imc.wichita.brite.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: sip-admin@lists.bell-labs.com
Errors-To: sip-admin@lists.bell-labs.com
X-Mailman-Version: 1.1
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: IETF SIP Mailing List <sip.lists.bell-labs.com>
X-BeenThere: sip@lists.bell-labs.com
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
"Culpepper, Bert" wrote: > > I understand and agree that support for a signaling protocol inside another > signaling protocol is highly undesirable. However, SIP does not support > mid-call terminal events that I'm aware of. If we can transporting ISUP and > QSIG inside of SIP why can't a subset of MGCP and Megaco be transported > inside of SIP (for those who wish to support it)? Because ISUP provides information that is very much related to the function of SIP in the first place - initiation of sessions between end points. There is a natural mapping of ISUP messages to SIP messages for this very reason - both are call establishment protocols. If you ignore the ISUP, the SIP is still useful and makes sense by itself. The semantics of the protocol are driven off SIP, *not* the ISUP in the payload. That is not the case if you tunnel megaco over SIP. I would not advocate tunneling DHCP over SIP, HTTP over SIP, or SLP over SIP, since those protocols don't do the same thing SIP does. Same with megaco/mgcp. Tunneling them over SIP serves no purpose. SIP is not a good transfer protocol (see the Guidelines for Authors of SIP Extensions: http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-rosenberg-sip-guidelines-00.txt). Just use the native transport define by the protocol. I understand you have an application where you want an app server to have access to media services provided by an MG attached through a softswitch. Thats a fine thing to do. I also understand that this requires megaco/MGCP to be used between the app server and the MG, going through the softswitch in order to achieve consistency of control. Now, just because SIP *also* runs between the softswitch and app server, does not mean that if you also need megaco between them, you should tunnel megaco through SIP. Just run megaco as an additional protocol between the two. -Jonathan R. -- Jonathan D. Rosenberg 72 Eagle Rock Ave. Chief Scientist First Floor dynamicsoft East Hanover, NJ 07936 jdrosen@dynamicsoft.com FAX: (973) 952-5050 http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~jdrosen PHONE: (732) 741-7244 http://www.dynamicsoft.com _______________________________________________ SIP mailing list SIP@lists.bell-labs.com http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/sip
- RE: [SIP] authentication at gateway Michael Thomas
- RE: [SIP] authentication at gateway Culpepper, Bert
- RE: [SIP] authentication at gateway Rohan Mahy
- [SIP] authentication at gateway Serban Tatu
- Re: [SIP] authentication at gateway Jonathan Rosenberg
- Re: [SIP] authentication at gateway Jonathan Rosenberg
- RE: [SIP] authentication at gateway Christian Huitema
- RE: [SIP] authentication at gateway Rosen, Brian
- RE: [SIP] authentication at gateway Gardell, Steve
- RE: [SIP] authentication at gateway Christian Huitema
- RE: [SIP] authentication at gateway Henry Sinnreich
- RE: [SIP] authentication at gateway Michael Thomas
- RE: [SIP] authentication at gateway Culpepper, Bert
- RE: [SIP] authentication at gateway Henry Sinnreich
- RE: [SIP] authentication at gateway Henry Sinnreich
- RE: [SIP] authentication at gateway Culpepper, Bert
- Re: [SIP] authentication at gateway Jonathan Rosenberg