Re: [Sip] PING/PONG

Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com> Mon, 06 December 2004 14:59 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 JAA18761 for <sip-web-archive@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Dec 2004 09:59:57 -0500 (EST)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CbKRd-0006rR-TB for sip-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 06 Dec 2004 10:06:35 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CbKGE-00054c-F9; Mon, 06 Dec 2004 09:54:46 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CbKDR-0004hw-SH for sip@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 06 Dec 2004 09:51:54 -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 JAA18390 for <sip@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Dec 2004 09:51:52 -0500 (EST)
Received: from magus.nostrum.com ([69.5.195.2] ident=root) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CbKJn-0006is-Oe for sip@ietf.org; Mon, 06 Dec 2004 09:58:29 -0500
Received: from [192.168.1.216] (c-24-1-66-77.client.comcast.net [24.1.66.77]) (authenticated bits=0) by magus.nostrum.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id iB6EpYOM054232 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 6 Dec 2004 08:51:40 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from rjsparks@nostrum.com)
In-Reply-To: <41B135A5.1040208@cisco.com>
References: <CD9775120D600F43B9C50329395E9DB64F321F@ivor.citel.com> <13719E43-3D96-11D9-93B0-000D93326732@nostrum.com> <41A43E4D.8020102@cisco.com> <59BC20AE-3E26-11D9-93B0-000D93326732@nostrum.com> <41B135A5.1040208@cisco.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Message-Id: <53A35690-4796-11D9-8F23-000D93326732@nostrum.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
Subject: Re: [Sip] PING/PONG
Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2004 08:51:35 -0600
To: Jonathan Rosenberg <jdrosen@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619)
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 92df29fa99cf13e554b84c8374345c17
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: sip@ietf.org, Christian Stredicke <Christian.Stredicke@snom.de>, Steve Langstaff <steve.langstaff@citel.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>
Sender: sip-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: sip-bounces@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 0fa76816851382eb71b0a882ccdc29ac
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I hope we're talking past each other at this point.

You seem to be proposing that I would _never_ open a connection with 
anything but
one proxy, even if I had network visibility to something else and the 
knowledge that
I wanted to talk to it.

I'm saying that if I want to have a dialog with something that I can 
reach (but it can't
open a connection to me), that I want to open a connection to it and 
for the duration
of that dialog, keep the connection alive. My original point is that I 
want to use the
same mechanism we define for keeping a connection to a proxy alive.

I think maybe you're only seeing the "tried to place a call and it 
ended up on some
random voicemail server" use case in your response below. Look at it 
from a
retrieving voicemail point of view. Then consider other services (like 
a presence server)
I might like to use, perhaps from a third party provider.

RjS


On Dec 3, 2004, at 9:57 PM, Jonathan Rosenberg wrote:

> inline.
>
> Robert Sparks wrote:
>
>>>
>>>> Endpoints behind the things we are wanting to do this refresh 
>>>> things to can be signaling
>>>> directly with endpoints that aren't (a service provider could let 
>>>> people talk to voice-mail
>>>> or conference servers directly).
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't see how that practically works in the presence of nat. If 
>>> you are using tcp/tls, the thing to which you have a connection open 
>>> is the only place from which you can get subsequent requests. Thus, 
>>> if I make a call that lands on a voicemail server, the proxy holding 
>>> my tcp/tls connection has to be on the signaling path, or it just 
>>> won't work.
>> If I can establish a tcp/tls connection to that voicemail server, 
>> then subsequent requests from it can
>> come back down that connection assuming we can keep it alive.
>
> My point is, there may not (indeed, won't be) a connection to that 
> thing in the first place. It would need to be established only after 
> the call setup is complete. How would the client know to do that? You 
> also have a race condition, whereby even if the client knew to do 
> this, a sip request could arrive from the voicemail server before the 
> client can establish the connection. I'm just not seeing the benefit 
> here.
>
> -Jonathan R.
>
>
> -- 
> Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                   600 Lanidex Plaza
> Director, Service Provider VoIP Architecture   Parsippany, NJ 
> 07054-2711
> Cisco Systems
> jdrosen@cisco.com                              FAX:   (973) 952-5050
> http://www.jdrosen.net                         PHONE: (973) 952-5000
> http://www.cisco.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