Re: Comments on draft-camarillo-mmusic-sip-isup-bcp-00.txt

["Pete Cordell" <[e-mail]>]

Jonathan,

I like this solution for handling in-complete numbers.  It would be nice if
there was some way to reduce the number of failed attempts though.

Perhaps the 484 response could contain a parameter that specified the
minimum number length for a number of the given pre-fix.

A megaco style digit map could be included, but I feel this is overly
complicated to expect all UAs to understand it.

Perhaps parameters in the 484 could specify the minimum number of digits
needed and optionally a digitmap.

That way a simple device could keep trying digit by digit as in your
example.  An improved device could wait until it had collected the minimum
number of digits, and the mega super special version could interpret the
digit map.

(In this I'm assuming that the digit map is a lot easier to generate -
perhaps using manual or off-line means - than it is to interpret.  If a
digitmap is manually generated, or uses some off-line process to generate
it, I'm assuming that all a proxy has to do with it is copy it to the
appropriate 484 response field.)

The thing I'm not sure about is the handling of the SAMs.  On the face of it
I would prefer these to be transported through the network rather than being
re-generated.  I don't know whether the final INVITE should include IAM plus
all the additional SAMs, or whether it is appropriate to define a SAM that
captures all the changes from the previous SAMs.  Another option is not to
send any SAMs at all, but update the IAM with the SAM information.

Pete

=============================================
Pete Cordell
[e-mail]
=============================================

-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[e-mail]>
To: Gonzalo Camarillo <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>;
[e-mail] <[e-mail]>;
[e-mail] <[e-mail]>;
[e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Date: 18 November 1999 15:58
Subject: Re: Comments on draft-camarillo-mmusic-sip-isup-bcp-00.txt


>What if, rather than encapsulating subsequent digits into INFO, they are
>added to the request URI in an INVITE? A local proxy for the gateway
>will respond with 484 to all those that don't have enough digits until
>it gets one that does have enough. So:
>
>
>Ingress GW            P             Egress GW
>
>INV tel:1 ------------>
>CSeq: 1
>
>INV tel:12 ----------->
>CSeq: 2
>
>
><---------484 --------
>          CSeq: 1
>
>INV tel:121 --------->
>CSeq: 3
>
><---------484 -------
>          CSeq: 2
>
>INV tel:1212 --------> ---------------------->   IAM 1212---------->
>CSeq: 4
>
><--------------484----
>               CSeq: 3
>
>INV tel:12125---------> ----------------------> SAM 5 ------------->
>CSeq: 5
>
>INV tel:121255 -------> ----------------------> SAM 5 ------------->
>CSeq: 6
>
>INV tel:[phone] ------> -----------------------> SAM 5 ------------>
>CSeq: 7
>
>.......(same thing for digits 1, 2, 1)
>
>INV tel:[phone]----> ---------------------> SAM 2 -------------->
>CSeq: 11                                        <---------ACM-------
>
>                         <------484-----------
>                                CSeq: 5
>                         <------484-----------
>                                CSeq: 6
>                               .......
>                         <------484
>                                CSeq: 10
>                         <---183--------------
>                                CSeq: 11
>
>
>Ok, so let me explain. Proxies do routing just on longest prefix matches
>for INVITE's. So, proxy P can be stateless actually, as it just forwards
>INVITEs that match 1212. The ingress gateway sends a re-INVITE (possibly
>without waiting for a response to the previous INVITE) every time a new
>digit is received from the PSTN. Once the proxy has enough digits to
>route, it won't send 484 anymore, and forwards it to the egress gateway.
>The egress gateway is smart, and creates an IAM from the first INVITE.
>Subsequent re-INVITEs cause SAMs to be sent, containing the difference
>in the set of digits from the previous INVITE. Once the egress gateway
>receives an ACM (address complete, right?), it responds with a 484 to
>all the INVITEs but the last, and the final INVITE with a 183. Things
>progress normally from there.
>
>Implications:
>
>1. proxies don't have to know anything about INFO or ISUP. They just
>have to know longest prefix match routing for phone numbers. They can
>even be stateless.
>
>2. egress gateways that know ISUP effectively re-generate the SAMs
>
>3. if the egress point is not an ISUP gateway, but a PC terminal or
>something that happens to have a phone number as its name, it will have
>to know enough to reject each INVITE until it gets one with a request
>URI/To field that matches its own number. This, BTW, is normal behavior.
>A UAS rejects an INVITE if the URI is for an address thats not its own.
>
>4. This works *even* if there is misordering of re-INVITEs. The egress
>gateway computes the SAMs based on differentials. So, lets say it
>receives the INVITE with 1555, then the INVITE with 155512. It then
>sends two SAMs, the first with 1, the next with 2. Lets say, then, that
>the INVITE with 15551 comes. Based on CSeq, the egress gateway knows its
>old and rejects it.
>
>5. The ingress gateway doesn't depend on special messages or a
>completion character, like #, to send an INVITE.
>
>
>
>
>Its very possible I've completely missed something, as I'm hardly an
>ISUP expert. Perhaps there is additional data in SAM such that it MUST
>be sent across, rather than being regenerated. But, the above solution
>seems nice, as it doesn't break anything, works with non-ISUP
>terminating points, doesn't require users to dial a # at the end of the
>digit string, etc.
>
>Comments?
>
>-Jonathan R.
>
>
>Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:
>>
>> It is nicer to send complete URIs in the "to" header. If the i-gateway
>> sends the INVITE before receiveing all the digits, the "to" header is
>> not complete. It would contain just a few digits of the whole telephone
>> number (this assumes that with just some digits the i-gateway figures
>> out where to send the INVITE).
>>
>> Gonzalo
>>
>> [e-mail] wrote:
>> >
>> > >The use of a timer to force enbloc signaling is not acceptable. In the
case
>> > >of SIP bridging, subscribers originating calls from the PSTN will not
accept
>> > >an artificial post-dial delay (even if it is just a few seconds long).
>> > >Overlap signaling must be supported. It is essential that the overlap
>> > >process takes place within the context of a single session - using the
>> > >suggested INVITE/CANCEL/INVITE approach would result in multiple
abortive
>> > >calls being delivered to the terminating agent, which would not be
>> > >acceptable.
>> > >
>> > >Why not send an INVITE message when the ISUP IAM is received and then
send
>> > >subsequent INFO messages for each ISUP SAM? I understand that "pure"
SIP
>> > >agents will expect the INVITE to contain the complete address of the
called
>> > >party. This could be handled by including support for overlap in the
>> > >"Require" extensions
(draft-roach-mmusic-sip-pstn-require-header-00.txt). If
>> > >the terminator did not support the PSTN extensions, the originator
could
>> > >then switch to enbloc and wait for the full address to be collected.
>> >
>> > There are a variety of problems here. The first is determining how
>> > intervening proxies will react. If, for example, a proxy is making
>> > decisions about where to forward messages based on a called party URI,
>> > your suggestion would require it to understand ISUP (for interpretation
>> > of SAM message). It also requires it to have number analysis code and
>> > dialing plan information (potentially for the entire globe).
>> >
>> > The problem gets even stranger for redirect servers, which expect to
>> > be able to send an immediate response to an INVITE -- not sit around
>> > collecting digits.
>> >
>> > Basically, your suggestion forces overlapped dialing deep into each
>> > and every SIP node in the network that is expected to receive calls
>> > originating from the PSTN network.
>> >
>> > I agree that this is a problem that needs to be solved if we intend
>> > to use SIP between two PSTN phones; but we need to find a better
>> > solution than tunelling SAMs all over the place.
>> >
>> > We shouldn't overlook human factors: it could be that customers are
>> > willing to, for example, be trained to press "#" at the end of a
>> > phone number to skip the post-dial-delay.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Adam Roach, Ericsson Inc. |  Ph: [phone] | 1010 E. Arapaho, MS
L-04
>> > [e-mail]   | Fax: [phone] | Richardson, TX 75081
USA
>>
>> --
>> Gonzalo Camarillo         Phone :  [phone]
>> Oy L M Ericsson Ab        Mobile:  [phone]
>> Telecom R&D               Fax   :  [phone]
>> FIN-02420 Jorvas          Email :  [e-mail]
>> Finland
>
>--
>Jonathan D. Rosenberg                       200 Executive Drive
>Chief Scientist                             Suite 120
>dynamicsoft                                 West Orange, NJ 07052
>[e-mail]                     FAX:   [phone]
>http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~jdrosen         PHONE: [phone]
>http://www.dynamicsoft.com
>
>