RE: [Sip] PING/PONG [bcc][faked-from][heur]

["Christian Stredicke" <[e-mail]>]

Well, the negotiation who refreshes is more or less the question if you have a legacy device or not.

I totally agree, if there is no legacy device, the UA should refresh.

But currently, there are only legacy devices or proprietary implementations.-) Lets agree on a standard, that's why were are here.

My proposal: A new header "Keep-Alive" in the REGISTER request:

(A) Propose refresh every 15 seconds, offer methods stun, register, crlf

REGISTER sip:snom.com SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 10.67.87.210:4064;branch=z9hG4bK-g1gkta5je1yq;rport
From: "Christian Stredicke" <sip:[e-mail]>;tag=l3rj6dvhfl
To: "Christian Stredicke" <sip:[e-mail]>
Call-ID: e52d914160a1-8yd3fpzu59l7@snom220
CSeq: 1 REGISTER
Max-Forwards: 70
Contact: <sip:cs@10.67.87.210:4064;line=o58ete25>;q=1.0
Keep-Alive: 15;method="stun,crlf,register"
Expires: 3600
Content-Length: 0

(B) Other party acknowledges and selects stun refreshes:

SIP/2.0 200 Ok
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 10.67.87.210:4064;branch=z9hG4bK-hypaxu2640zy;rport=4064;received=130.129.97.54
From: "Christian Stredicke" <sip:[e-mail]>;tag=l3rj6dvhfl
To: "Christian Stredicke" <sip:[e-mail]>;tag=0zikcb2fzo
Call-ID: e52d914160a1-8yd3fpzu59l7@snom220
CSeq: 1 REGISTER
Contact: <sip:cs@10.67.87.210:4064;line=o58ete25>;expires=3600
Keep-Alive: 15;method="stun"
Content-Length: 0


CS 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On 
> Behalf Of Christian Jansson
> Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 12:01 PM
> To: Christian Stredicke; Chris Boulton; Christer Holmberg 
> (JO/LMF); [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: [Sip] PING/PONG [bcc][faked-from][heur]
> 
> 
> 
> >>[Chris Boulton] Whatever we decide we shouldn't restrict it to 
> >>'one-way'.  In different deployments and scenarios it 
> should be possible for either >>entity to keep a connection alive.
> > 
> >(CS) Sure. But the role has to be negotiated. If possible, 
> the UA should do that job. If it is not able to do this (e.g. 
> because it does not support >refreshing) the fall back 
> solution will always be that the network side has to do the job. 
>  
> Does it really have to be negotiated? If we all think that 
> refreshes should be handled by the UA, why not decide that 
> that is the only standardized way to do it. Given that things 
> have worked without this negotiation for quite some time now, 
> things will not get any worse just because we write down a 
> standardized way for a UA to do keep-alives. If some UAs did 
> not take the keep-alive issue in consideration before this 
> discussion begun, it could only mean two things:
> 1) The UA did not work in the real world, and I guess they 
> would have noticed that. 
> 2) They used STUN/CRLF, invented something else, or perhaps 
> they sent OPTIONS/PING/??? from the server, which they can 
> continue to do even though it is not the documented way of 
> doing it. Either they update their UA according to "standard" 
> keep-alives or they keep the proprietary solution, and I 
> don't think the standard for keep-alives should try to 
> compensate for all those solutions. 
> 
> / Christian Jansson
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
> This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use 
> [e-mail] for questions on current sip 
> Use [e-mail] for new developments on the application of sip
> 
> 
> 

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [e-mail] for questions on current sip
Use [e-mail] for new developments on the application of sip