IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [sipcore] RFC5626 and REGISTER with multiple contacts

"Kevin P. Fleming" <kpfleming@digium.com> Tue, 08 May 2012 15:07 UTC

Return-Path: <kpfleming@digium.com>
X-Original-To: sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F4AE11E8091 for <sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 May 2012 08:07:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.13
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.13 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.131, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_38=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tAwddYOYFg11 for <sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 May 2012 08:07:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.digium.com (mail.digium.com [216.207.245.2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A8CC11E808D for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 May 2012 08:07:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.24.55.203] (helo=zimbra.hsv.digium.com) by mail.digium.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <kpfleming@digium.com>) id 1SRm15-0005Hg-B2 for sipcore@ietf.org; Tue, 08 May 2012 10:07:55 -0500
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.hsv.digium.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F0BDD8004 for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 May 2012 10:07:55 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from zimbra.hsv.digium.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra.hsv.digium.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TpANm2EPBiKK for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 May 2012 10:07:55 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from [10.24.250.46] (unknown [10.24.250.46]) by zimbra.hsv.digium.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EE389D8005 for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 May 2012 10:07:54 -0500 (CDT)
Message-ID: <4FA936B8.6080801@digium.com>
Date: Tue, 08 May 2012 10:07:36 -0500
From: "Kevin P. Fleming" <kpfleming@digium.com>
Organization: Digium, Inc.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120430 Thunderbird/12.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: sipcore@ietf.org
References: <3A324A65CCACC64289667DFAC0B88E12197E3BB890@ESESSCMS0360.eemea.ericsson.se> <CALiegfk5t5p=sw0MVcrzVshYs2Z3kiw0KYmqzLRGmdcPZj3YfA@mail.gmail.com> <3A324A65CCACC64289667DFAC0B88E12197E3BBEA3@ESESSCMS0360.eemea.ericsson.se> <4FA3EFD8.2080903@digium.com> <3A324A65CCACC64289667DFAC0B88E12197E438967@ESESSCMS0360.eemea.ericsson.se> <4FA7D98E.8090100@alum.mit.edu> <3A324A65CCACC64289667DFAC0B88E12197E438E96@ESESSCMS0360.eemea.ericsson.se> <CALiegfkjp=V8ZHZRuD7atXN5eqNbrXnO8tVxc9-U8k=637Ok9Q@mail.gmail.com> <3A324A65CCACC64289667DFAC0B88E12197E438EF2@ESESSCMS0360.eemea.ericsson.se> <CALiegfkBge3QWUVdk01bAOtqLA9UGN2meoR4Aoc_LJjfUGyMvg@mail.gmail.com> <3A324A65CCACC64289667DFAC0B88E12197E438F2D@ESESSCMS0360.eemea.ericsson.se> <4FA92331.5010001@alum.mit.edu> <CALiegfkhGow1kQF7cWz05CdpE9GO+h2M_Qmn0FtKnGRQtAbH2g@mail.gmail.com> <4FA928C6.4040302@alum.mit.edu> <4FA92E05.4060709@digium.com> <4FA93158.2020104@alum.mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <4FA93158.2020104@alum.mit.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [sipcore] RFC5626 and REGISTER with multiple contacts
X-BeenThere: sipcore@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIP Core Working Group <sipcore.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sipcore>, <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sipcore>
List-Post: <mailto:sipcore@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore>, <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 May 2012 15:07:56 -0000

On 05/08/2012 09:44 AM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
> Its also true that registering multiple contacts means that forked call
> attempts may reach more than one of the instances. This is a bit
> inefficient and will require care to provide a reasonable user experience.

If a registrar supported multiple Contact URIs for a single AoR with the 
same sip.instance value, wouldn't this still be true? If a proxy does 
RFC3841 processing to select candidates to send a request to, and more 
than one candidate matches, the request would still be forked, wouldn't it?

-- 
Kevin P. Fleming
Digium, Inc. | Director of Software Technologies
Jabber: kfleming@digium.com | SIP: kpfleming@digium.com | Skype: kpfleming
445 Jan Davis Drive NW - Huntsville, AL 35806 - USA
Check us out at www.digium.com & www.asterisk.org

v2.35.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status