Re: [sipcore] Bypassing out-of-service intermediate Proxy

Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> Thu, 02 December 2010 20:35 UTC

Return-Path: <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: sipcore@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sipcore@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83CA63A69EB for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Dec 2010 12:35:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.439
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.439 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.160, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ajiba8SHCZdl for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Dec 2010 12:35:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailgw10.se.ericsson.net (mailgw10.se.ericsson.net [193.180.251.61]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D549A28C0D6 for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Dec 2010 12:35:48 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb3d-b7b8cae0000016b1-73-4cf8036f31ab
Received: from esessmw0247.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by mailgw10.se.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id F0.13.05809.F6308FC4; Thu, 2 Dec 2010 21:37:03 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.175]) by esessmw0247.eemea.ericsson.se ([10.2.3.116]) with mapi; Thu, 2 Dec 2010 21:37:03 +0100
From: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
To: "Worley, Dale R (Dale)" <dworley@avaya.com>, Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@cisco.com>, "youssef.chadli@orange-ftgroup.com" <youssef.chadli@orange-ftgroup.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 21:33:46 +0100
Thread-Topic: [sipcore] Bypassing out-of-service intermediate Proxy
Thread-Index: AcuGucJgDasXXQisTj27OAMu8zhX2wHA82BUASHjmBsABsZ9LQ==
Message-ID: <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A058502C718D9@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se>
References: <9ECCF01B52E7AB408A7EB8535264214101CD7EE2@ftrdmel0.rd.francetelecom.fr><4C7FDBEE.6080305@nostrum.com>, <9ECCF01B52E7AB408A7EB85352642141020FD443@ftrdmel0.rd.francetelecom.fr> <CD5674C3CD99574EBA7432465FC13C1B22022889B6@DC-US1MBEX4.global.avaya.com><9ECCF01B52E7AB408A7EB8535264214102155080@ftrdmel0.rd.francetelecom.fr> <4CD16A52.7090006@cisco.com> <9ECCF01B52E7AB408A7EB853526421410221B4E3@ftrdmel0.rd.francetelecom.fr> <4CD53DFC.8020401@cisco.com> <9ECCF01B52E7AB408A7EB85352642141022A9552@ftrdmel0.rd.francetelecom.fr>, <4CE476E2.70801@cisco.com>, <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A058502C71893@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se>, <CD5674C3CD99574EBA7432465FC13C1B2202288A74@DC-US1MBEX4.global.avaya.com>
In-Reply-To: <CD5674C3CD99574EBA7432465FC13C1B2202288A74@DC-US1MBEX4.global.avaya.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
Cc: "sipcore@ietf.org" <sipcore@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [sipcore] Bypassing out-of-service intermediate Proxy
X-BeenThere: sipcore@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIP Core Working Group <sipcore.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Thu, 02 Dec 2010 20:35:52 -0000

Hi,

>>Not exactly the same case that Youssef is talking about, but every now and then I have had discussions that it would be useful to be able to re-negotiate the route set (not only the local/remote targets, but also the record-routes) during a dialog. E.g. in Outbound cases it could be used to move ongoing dialogs 
>>from a failed flow to another (it is not always possible to achieve it by using domain names and DNS).
>>
>>No, I did not suggest that we start work on such functionality :)
>
>You mean that the renegotiation would be initiated by an *intermediate* proxy.  That is extremely ugly!

I agree. I later said that it would be good to have a response code which the proxy could send in order to trigger a renegotiation by the UA.

Regards,

Christer