RE: [Sip] Vocabulary and problem statement for Request-URI, retargeting, and SIP routing (long, but read it!)

Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan@acmepacket.com> Fri, 18 January 2008 04:33 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 1JFivH-0001s7-L3; Thu, 17 Jan 2008 23:33:43 -0500
Received: from sip by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1JFivF-0001s2-U6 for sip-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 17 Jan 2008 23:33:41 -0500
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JFivF-0001ru-It for sip@ietf.org; Thu, 17 Jan 2008 23:33:41 -0500
Received: from host6.216.41.24.conversent.net ([216.41.24.6] helo=etmail.acmepacket.com) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JFivD-0006Zw-6a for sip@ietf.org; Thu, 17 Jan 2008 23:33:39 -0500
Received: from mail.acmepacket.com (216.41.24.7) by etmail.acmepacket.com (216.41.24.6) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.240.5; Thu, 17 Jan 2008 23:33:34 -0500
Received: from mail.acmepacket.com ([216.41.24.7]) by mail.acmepacket.com ([216.41.24.7]) with mapi; Thu, 17 Jan 2008 23:33:32 -0500
From: Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan@acmepacket.com>
To: Dean Willis <dean.willis@softarmor.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 23:30:44 -0500
Subject: RE: [Sip] Vocabulary and problem statement for Request-URI, retargeting, and SIP routing (long, but read it!)
Thread-Topic: [Sip] Vocabulary and problem statement for Request-URI, retargeting, and SIP routing (long, but read it!)
Thread-Index: AchZYfL1QvCIyH0OTa25KVenIalpMwAJtXyA
Message-ID: <E6C2E8958BA59A4FB960963D475F7AC306E4ED472E@mail.acmepacket.com>
References: <5D1A7985295922448D5550C94DE2918001AC02E9@DEEXC1U01.de.lucent.com> <CA9998CD4A020D418654FCDEF4E707DF040D69C7@esealmw113.eemea.ericsson.se> <0D5F89FAC29E2C41B98A6A762007F5D0549D3F@GBNTHT12009MSX.gb002.siemens.net> <1ECE0EB50388174790F9694F77522CCF1438F1B0@zrc2hxm0.corp.nortel.com> <478CEFB4.6070002@zonnet.nl> <CA9998CD4A020D418654FCDEF4E707DF0413D587@esealmw113.eemea.ericsson.se> <"0D5F89FA C29E2C41B98A6A762007F5D0593C68"@GBNTHT12009MSX.gb002.siemen! s .net> A <CA9998CD4A0 20D418654FCDEF4E707DF04173CB8@esealmw113.eemea.ericsson.se> <0D5F89FAC29E2C41B98A6A762007F5D0593CFF@GBNTHT12009MSX.gb002.siemens.net> A <CA9998CD4A020D418654FCDEF4E707DF041743D6@esealmw113.eemea.ericsson.se> <0D5F89FAC29E2C41B98A6A762007F5D0593E13@GBNTHT12009MSX.gb002.siemens.net> <CA9998CD4A020D418654FCDEF4E707DF041C939B@esealmw113.eemea.ericsson.se> <C8D63C78-437F-430E-950C-2E63C69E3CEF@softarmor.com> <E6C2E8958BA59A4FB960963D475F7AC306E4ED4501@mail.acmepacket.com> <478FE88B.30501@softarmor.com>
In-Reply-To: <478FE88B.30501@softarmor.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 0ddefe323dd869ab027dbfff7eff0465
Cc: IETF SIP List <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>
Errors-To: sip-bounces@ietf.org


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dean Willis [mailto:dean.willis@softarmor.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 6:45 PM
>
> AFAIK, the original goal of UALR was to get parameters to applications.
> The last time I thought I understood the draft, these were preserved
> back somewhere on teh route stack so that the application could get them.

That may have been the intent, but as I read draft-rosenberg-sip-ua-loose-route-01.txt, it doesn't do that if a retarget occurs.  In a retargeting case the req-uri is replaced with the new target.  In the rerouting case, the req-uri is left alone, and the newly resolved destination URI (for lack of a better term) would be pushed as a Route header.

It does, though, say the previous req-uri would be pushed into the History-Info header.  It would have been before this draft too, if people implemented it, except with this new draft ONLY retarget cases would push a History-Info.  So I guess in that sense you're right, the pre-retargeting data could be there in that.


> >
> > But in the re-targeting scenario such as:
> >                     RTRG                    RRT
> >                    +---+                   +---+
> >                    |R1 |                   |R2 |
> >                 B /+---+\ C             E /+---+\ F
> >             RT   /       \  RT      RT   /       \  RT
> >            +---+/         \+---+ D +---+/         \+---+
> >            |P1 |           |P2 +---+P3 |           |P4 |
> >         A /+---+           +---+   +---+           +---+\ G
> >          /                                               \
> >    +---+/                                                 \+---+
> >    |UAC|                                                   |UAS|
> >    +---+                                                   +---+
> >
> > UA-Loose-routing wants the req-uri seen on connection "C" I think.
> > To header gives you A.
> > PCPID gives you E.
> > Hist-Info gives you A,B,C,D,E,F.
>
> As I thought I understood it, UALR gives us the stack of A and C.

If R1 and R2 did UALR, the UAS would get the req-uri from C, a History-Info with B, and there'd be a Route header with UAS' contact.

-hadriel



_______________________________________________
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