Re: [Uri-review] [sipcore] Proposal: sip6 URI scheme
Rick van Rein <rick@openfortress.nl> Thu, 26 April 2012 11:08 UTC
Return-Path: <rick@openfortress.nl>
X-Original-To: uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F175421F86EE; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 04:08:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.189
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.189 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.632, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545]
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 mnjRYe2WvMVQ; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 04:08:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fame.vanrein.org (openfortress.nl [213.189.19.244]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A30C21F869E; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 04:08:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from phantom.vanrein.org (phantom.vanrein.org [83.161.146.46]) by fame.vanrein.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D6824040D1; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 12:08:14 +0100 (BST)
Received: by phantom.vanrein.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 616722255C; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 11:16:35 +0000 (CEST)
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 11:16:35 +0000
From: Rick van Rein <rick@openfortress.nl>
To: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
Message-ID: <20120426111635.GA27786@newphantom.local>
References: <20120426092725.GC27002@newphantom.local> <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A05852C441F106E@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A05852C441F106E@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se>
X-My-Coolest-Hack: http://rick.vanrein.org/linux/badram -> Exploit broken RAM
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Cc: "uri-review@ietf.org" <uri-review@ietf.org>, "sipcore@ietf.org" <sipcore@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Uri-review] [sipcore] Proposal: sip6 URI scheme
X-BeenThere: uri-review@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proposed URI Schemes <uri-review.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/uri-review>, <mailto:uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/uri-review>
List-Post: <mailto:uri-review@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review>, <mailto:uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 11:08:22 -0000
Hello all, Thanks for your feedback. > Maybe you could describe the use-case you have in mind, and what you want > to achieve, and then we can look at possible solutions. I am thinking of direct media connections between SIP callers, after setup of a call from ENUM entries, or perhaps freenum.org, or to one's hosted SIP proxy under a domain name, e.g. sip:rick@openfortress.nl -- these schemes are part of the promise that SIP holds for telephony over the Internet. Direct calls are ideally served with IPv6. But as long as there is no way to infer if a service is IPv6-only, there will be a practical need to support IPv4 as well, so as to avoid failed call setups due to inavailability of a caller-assumed transport. With IPv4 as an always-present fallback, there is no real reason to implement IPv6 as well. Specifically, for IPv6 as the connecting protocol between the caller's side and the callee's side. Everyone is waiting for everyone else. IPv6 however, is very useful for direct calls over the Internet, as it has no problems with NAT (only with firewalls, which is easily solved) and so it never requires an RTP proxy. RTP proxies are potentially problematic for a number of reasons: - efficiency: RTP traffic may pass through more hops than needed - quality: Call quality may suffer from extra media indirections - complexity: setting up a private RTP proxy is not straightforward - freedom: most end-users will be dependent on an external party's RTP proxy - facilities: external RTP proxies may not support all media wishes (think of high-bandwidth video or the deaf's realtime-text protocol) - privacy: external RTP proxies are often regulated into tapping phone calls Having a separate indication of SIP over IPv6 clearly states the opposite situation; there is no need to attempt IPv4 on setups, and so it makes no sense to use such URIs on any implementation but an IPv6-capable one. This may include tools that setup IPv6 over a tunnel to create the call. Please note that nothing prohibits proxies to handle both sip6: and sip: URIs, and perhaps translate them to each other's format. The only thing that would be required, is that such a proxy would use IPv6 only on the sip6: side, so it may end up being an RTP proxy as well -- but only for the local end, where a peer has not implemented SIP over IPv6 yet. The lookup of a sip6: party is an IPv6-only process, which means that the default has shifted from SIP over IPv4 to SIP over IPv6, whenever possible. A new URI scheme is not the only way to accomplish this; in fact, anything in the syntax of a sip: URI would do it. The reason why I proposed a URI scheme is that it works well in browsers etc. that generally choose a handler application based on the URI scheme; it would not start a sip: handler if it failed to recognise a ?transport=udp-ipv6 annotation, and it could usually be configured to start a different handler for sip6: without knowing anything about the SIP protocol (a protocol handler could register for handling the sip6: URI and another could register for the sip: URI, in case of a mobile platform). These are pragmatic considerations only, but they made me wish for a URI scheme. FWIW, I've engineered beta-level solutions that make it possible in all common usecases to use SIP over IPv6, and IPv6 alone. Information on that can be found on http://devel.0cpm.org/ -- mostly work in progress. Thanks to all for your feedback, Best wishes, Rick van Rein OpenFortress
- Re: [Uri-review] [sipcore] Proposal: sip6 URI sch… Christer Holmberg
- [Uri-review] Proposal: sip6 URI scheme Rick van Rein
- Re: [Uri-review] [sipcore] Proposal: sip6 URI sch… Rick van Rein
- [Uri-review] Fwd: [sipcore] Proposal: sip6 URI sc… Nataraju A.B
- Re: [Uri-review] [sipcore] Proposal: sip6 URI sch… Rick van Rein
- Re: [Uri-review] [sipcore] Proposal: sip6 URI sch… Olle E. Johansson
- Re: [Uri-review] [sipcore] Proposal: sip6 URI sch… Olle E. Johansson
- Re: [Uri-review] [sipcore] Proposal: sip6 URI sch… Saúl Ibarra Corretgé
- Re: [Uri-review] [sipcore] Proposal: sip6 URI sch… Nataraju A.B
- Re: [Uri-review] [sipcore] Proposal: sip6 URI sch… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [Uri-review] [sipcore] Proposal: sip6 URI sch… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [Uri-review] [sipcore] Proposal: sip6 URI sch… Dan Wing
- Re: [Uri-review] [sipcore] Proposal: sip6 URI sch… Rick van Rein
- Re: [Uri-review] [sipcore] Proposal: sip6 URI sch… Dan Wing