Re: [Sip] Outbound-10 comments
Rohan Mahy <rohan@ekabal.com> Sat, 01 December 2007 19:39 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 1IyYBI-0006qA-Mt; Sat, 01 Dec 2007 14:39:16 -0500
Received: from sip by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IyYBH-0006q4-0s for sip-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Sat, 01 Dec 2007 14:39:15 -0500
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IyYBG-0006pw-MJ for sip@ietf.org; Sat, 01 Dec 2007 14:39:14 -0500
Received: from figas.ekabal.com ([204.61.215.10]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IyYBF-00076c-Hn for sip@ietf.org; Sat, 01 Dec 2007 14:39:14 -0500
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (figas.ekabal.com [204.61.215.10]) (authenticated) by figas.ekabal.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id lB1JcfU18504; Sat, 1 Dec 2007 11:38:41 -0800
In-Reply-To: <20070921012259.39rpqki5cg84c4wg@horde-intra.tml.hut.fi>
References: <OFE1CA518D.694C1DC5-ON8525735C.0051D9FD-8525735C.0052F88C@mitel.com> <20070921012259.39rpqki5cg84c4wg@horde-intra.tml.hut.fi>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; delsp="yes"; format="flowed"
Message-Id: <F77A9269-7D0C-4139-90C4-816F549D4BE2@ekabal.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Rohan Mahy <rohan@ekabal.com>
Subject: Re: [Sip] Outbound-10 comments
Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2007 11:38:29 -0800
To: sergiole@tml.hut.fi
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3)
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 17e5edc4dfd335965c1d21372171c01c
Cc: sip@ietf.org, Rohan Mahy <rohan@ekabal.com>, peter_blatherwick@mitel.com, fluffy@cisco.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>
Errors-To: sip-bounces@ietf.org
Hi Sergio, I believe all your concerns have been addressed in outbound-11, except that the example in Section 9 needs to be rewritten. The keep- stun and keep-crlf parameters have been merged into a single 'keep' parameter. A few more comments inline. thanks, -rohan On Sep 20, 2007, at 3:22 PM, sergiole@tml.hut.fi wrote: > Hi, > > I composed the email below a month ago related to this thread and > thought that I was missing something so I did not posted it, but it > seems that there are some issues pending with the keepalive label > and processing. > > Sorry to introduce more questions: > > -- > > My comments are about the keep-stun label. > > It is not very clear how the UA discovers that the Edge Proxy > supports STUN. > > > In section 8 (keepalive processing). I read > > " When a URI is created that refers to a SIP node that supports > STUN as > described in this section, the 'keep-stun' URI parameter, as > defined > in Section 12 MUST be added to the URI. This allows a UA to > inspect > the URI to decide if it should attempt to send STUN requests to > this > location. For example, an edge proxy could insert this parameter > into its Path URI so that the registering UA can discover the edge > proxy supports STUN keepalives." > > Q1. Why "an edge proxy COULD insert this parameter into its Path > URI" and not MUST ? (considering that the UA supports STUN) If the next hop from the UA is the registrar, there will be no edge proxy and therefore probably no Path header. > Q2. In what other header can I also add the keep-stun, so that it > will be still present when I get back a response? the Path header or the Service-Route header for example. This could just be learned through configuration. > Note that in the example of section 9 the responses 200-OK haven't > any keep-stun This will get fixed when I overhaul the example. > (Also mentioned in http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sip/ > current/msg20295.html) > > > Q3. For the case in this example, How will the Callee know that it > is allowed to send STUN keepalives? (no keep-stun present) > > For the case in the example, and considering: > > "Typically, a SIP node first sends a SIP request and waits to > receive a final response (other than a 408 response) over a flow > to a new target destination, before sending any STUN messages." > > The callee will never send the keepalives... > > -- > Part II > > > In my opinion, the edge proxy MUST add a list of the supported > mechanisms for keepalive in the 200-OK response to REGISTER. The > list MUST include ALL the supported mechanisms (so the UA can for > example know that if some mechanism is not available for the > transport it used to register there are other mechanisms for other > protocols. In this case the UA will form a new flow by registering > using another protocol.) > > Example 1: > > UA sends REGISTER over UDP. > It gets back a 200 OK with only keep-crlf. > UA recognizes that STUN is not available, so a UDP flow can not > succeed. Then it sends a REGISTER over TCP. > > Example 2: > > UA sends REGISTER over UDP. > It gets back a 200 OK with keep-crlf and keep-stun. > UA recognizes that keep-crlf is present so (its logic) can judge > that TCP is a better choice. > Then the UA forgets using UDP and switches to TCP: sends a REGISTER > over TCP. > > Q: Should not be handy to have something like keep-Scrlf so the UA > can knows that TLS is also supported? The same for DTLS. > > > > > Sergio > > > Quoting peter_blatherwick@mitel.com: > >> 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
- [Sip] WGLC for draft-ietf-sip-subnot-etags-01 DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- Re: [Sip] WGLC for draft-ietf-sip-subnot-etags-01 Dale.Worley
- RE: [Sip] WGLC for draft-ietf-sip-subnot-etags-01 DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- [Sip] Outbound-10 comments Jerry Yin
- RE: [Sip] WGLC for draft-ietf-sip-subnot-etags-01 DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- Re: [Sip] Outbound-10 comments peter_blatherwick
- Re: [Sip] Outbound-10 comments sergiole
- RE: [Sip] WGLC for draft-ietf-sip-subnot-etags-01 DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- RE: [Sip] WGLC for draft-ietf-sip-subnot-etags-01 Brian Rosen
- Re: [Sip] Outbound-10 comments Rohan Mahy
- Re: [Sip] Outbound-10 comments Rohan Mahy
- Re: [Sip] Outbound-10 comments peter_blatherwick
- Re: [Sip] WGLC for draft-ietf-sip-subnot-etags-01 Aki Niemi
- Re: [Sip] WGLC for draft-ietf-sip-subnot-etags-01 Dale.Worley
- Re: [Sip] WGLC for draft-ietf-sip-subnot-etags-01 Aki Niemi
- Re: [Sip] WGLC for draft-ietf-sip-subnot-etags-01 Dean Willis
- Re: [Sip] WGLC for draft-ietf-sip-subnot-etags-01 Aki Niemi
- Re: [Sip] WGLC for draft-ietf-sip-subnot-etags-01 Dale.Worley
- Re: [Sip] WGLC for draft-ietf-sip-subnot-etags-01 Dale.Worley
- Re: [Sip] WGLC for draft-ietf-sip-subnot-etags-01 Aki Niemi
- Re: [Sip] WGLC for draft-ietf-sip-subnot-etags-01 Dean Willis
- Re: [Sip] WGLC for draft-ietf-sip-subnot-etags-01 Dale.Worley
- Re: [Sip] WGLC for draft-ietf-sip-subnot-etags-01 Dale.Worley