Re: [Sip] Outbound-10 comments

peter_blatherwick@mitel.com Thu, 20 September 2007 15:06 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 1IYNcI-000356-LU; Thu, 20 Sep 2007 11:06:58 -0400
Received: from sip by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IYNcH-000332-8M for sip-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 20 Sep 2007 11:06:57 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IYNcG-000327-U4 for sip@ietf.org; Thu, 20 Sep 2007 11:06:56 -0400
Received: from smtp.mitel.com ([216.191.234.102]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IYNcA-0007bI-LM for sip@ietf.org; Thu, 20 Sep 2007 11:06:56 -0400
Received: from localhost (smtp.mitel.com [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.mitel.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6222E2C098; Thu, 20 Sep 2007 11:06:40 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new (virusonly) at mitel.com
Received: from smtp.mitel.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.mitel.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0Wvli7BWzO1m; Thu, 20 Sep 2007 11:06:37 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from kanmta01.mitel.com (kanmta01 [134.199.37.58]) by smtp.mitel.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B597E2C094; Thu, 20 Sep 2007 11:06:37 -0400 (EDT)
In-Reply-To: <920188.21386.qm@web63205.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
To: Jerry Yin <jerry.yin@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Sip] Outbound-10 comments
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5.5 November 30, 2005
Message-ID: <OFE1CA518D.694C1DC5-ON8525735C.0051D9FD-8525735C.0052F88C@mitel.com>
From: peter_blatherwick@mitel.com
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 11:06:16 -0400
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on kanmta01/Mitel(Release 5.0.12 |February 13, 2003) at 09/20/2007 11:06:36 AM, Serialize complete at 09/20/2007 11:06:36 AM
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: e472ca43d56132790a46d9eefd95f0a5
Cc: fluffy@cisco.com, rohan@ekabal.com, 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>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1360882886=="
Errors-To: sip-bounces@ietf.org

I agree with Jerry here, and believe this has come up before (?).  It is 
pointless for the originating UA to try to impose, or infer, the keepalive 
mechanism before it can know what is applicable. 

An additional comment along these lines. 
> a. UA sends REGISTER to the proxy with a "outbound" tag in the Supported 
header.
...
> c. If the "outbound" tag is present in the 200 OK, and if the transport 
is UDP, using the STUN keep alive, other connection based transport using 
crlf keep alive.

Step a) would really imply the originating UA MUST support both keepalive 
mechanisms, and c) implies it MUST begin using the appropriate one after 
200 OK.  The usage is implied, not explicit, which I believe is sufficient 
in this case.  Alternatively, the usage could be made more explicit by 
listing the supported k-a mechanisms in Supported exchange, or some such. 
This should be spelled out either way. 

-- Peter Blatherwick






Jerry Yin <jerry.yin@yahoo.com>
19.09.07 16:40
 
        To:     sip@ietf.org, fluffy@cisco.com, rohan@ekabal.com
        cc: 
        Subject:        [Sip] Outbound-10 comments


Hi Cullen and Rohan,
 
In the draft, it requires the UA configure the next hop route header with 
"keep-stun", "keep-crlf", or "timed-keepalive" tags. This would cause some 
problems.
 
1. As an example, the route-set contains this route header as indicated in 
section 9 example: 
Route: <sip:pri.example.com;lr;keep-stun>
If the DNS NAPTR resolution for pri.example.com is TCP, SCTP or TLS, the 
keep-stun will be useless. Vice versa, if the pri.example.com is resolved 
as UDP, and if "keep-crlf" was manually configured, it is not working 
either.
 
2. Before sending the REGISTER request, the admin/or user does not know 
what keep-alive mechanism the proxy (or edge proxy) supports. Blindly 
configure the keep-stun, or keep-crlf would cause the problem that the 
draft indicated itself in section 8: "the node could be blacklisted for 
UDP traffic".
The better approach is to let the UA and the proxy to negotiate, not 
manually configure from UA side. 
a. UA sends REGISTER to the proxy with a "outbound" tag in the Supported 
header.
b. Proxy insert the "outbound" tag in the 200 OK, if the UA indicated that 
it supports the outbound.
c. If the "outbound" tag is present in the 200 OK, and if the transport is 
UDP, using the STUN keep alive, other connection based transport using 
crlf keep alive.
There would be no way to mass up by configurations with this approach. Let 
me know if I missed something.
 
Regards,
Jerry Yin
 
 Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search that gives answers, not web 
links. _______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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