Re: [Sip] PING/PONG

"Bob Penfield" <bpenfield@acmepacket.com> Tue, 09 November 2004 13:47 UTC

Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA26278 for <sip-web-archive@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Nov 2004 08:47:00 -0500 (EST)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CRWLd-0003pC-9x for sip-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Nov 2004 08:47:49 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CRW8X-0004ho-98; Tue, 09 Nov 2004 08:34:17 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CRW6w-0004GV-25 for sip@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Nov 2004 08:32:38 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA24828 for <sip@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Nov 2004 08:32:36 -0500 (EST)
Received: from host10.216.41.24.conversent.net ([216.41.24.10] helo=acmepacket.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CRW7f-0003QG-RG for sip@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Nov 2004 08:33:25 -0500
Received: from BPenfield2 [130.129.135.118] by acmepacket.com with ESMTP (SMTPD32-8.13) id A8CF50F0364; Tue, 09 Nov 2004 08:40:31 -0500
Message-ID: <002201c4c660$948f0ee0$ec25fea9@BPenfield2>
From: Bob Penfield <bpenfield@acmepacket.com>
To: "Christer Holmberg (JO/LMF)" <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>, 'Christian Stredicke' <Christian.Stredicke@snom.de>, fluffy@cisco.com
References: <F8EFC4B4A8C016428BC1F589296D4FBF07B08772@esealnt630.al.sw.ericsson.se>
Subject: Re: [Sip] PING/PONG
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 08:32:28 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1437
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 52f7a77164458f8c7b36b66787c853da
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: sip@ietf.org
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>
Sender: sip-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: sip-bounces@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 92df29fa99cf13e554b84c8374345c17
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Christer Holmberg (JO/LMF)" <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>

>
> Hi,
>
> >With UDP, the PING will create a new NAT binding and the
> >server can update its mapping for the UA.
>
> So will CRLF, won't it? The difference is that the UA will not be informed
> that the message has reached the destination (since there is no response),
> but the question is if we really would need that information for every
> keep-nat-binding message that we send (ie we use CRLF most of the time,
> and every now and then we use a SIP request to make sure that everything
> really works).

The CRLF does not contain enough information for the server to update its
mapping for the UA. There could be many UAs behind the same NAT, so the
server has no way to know which one it is.

The CRLF will keep an existing binding open in the NAT, but it does not
cover the case of a NAT reset. So the it depends on how long you are willing
to live without a valid binding in the server for the UA, and that would be
how often you would need to send a PING. You would only send CRLF too if
that was longer than the binding lifetime in the NAT.

>
> >With TCP, if you want to be able to detect that the NAT binding is gone
on
> >the order of a transaction timeout, you would need to send a
> >PING every 32 seconds or so. Given that NAT bindings for TCP live longer
> >than that, I don't see what the CRLF buys you.
>
> My point was that using PING you will not be able to detect problems
immediately, since you will have to wait for the transaction timeout before
you can determine that something is wrong.
>
> What I do NOT want to do is to send SIP requests too often, and therefor I
was wondering if it would be possible to also use CRLF :)
>
> Regards,
>
> Christer Holmberg
> Ericsson Finland
>
>
>
> >
> > cheers,
> > (-:bob
> >
> > Robert F. Penfield
> > Chief Software Architect
> > Acme Packet, Inc.
> > 130 New Boston Street
> > Woburn, MA 01801
> > bpenfield@acmepacket.com
> >
> >
> >
>
>



_______________________________________________
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