Re: [v6ops] Happy Eyeballs and SIP

> -----Original Message-----
> From: v6ops-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of Olle E. Johansson
> Sent: Monday, March 07, 2011 1:40 AM
> To: v6ops@ietf.org
> Subject: [v6ops] Happy Eyeballs and SIP
> 
> Hi!
> 
> Has anyone considered the issues covered in the happy-eyeballs draft
> for SIP?
> 
> A 19 or 32 second time out when placing a call is not a good user
> experience... I think this applies to SIP over TCP, and possibly also
> needs to be handled for UDP.
> I don't see this handled in the draft for IPv6 transition in the
> Session Initiation Protocol (soon-to-be RFC 6157)
> 
> Seems like the scope of the happy eyeballs draft is HTTP, so the
> question is if this should be expanded or if we need other drafts for
> other protocols.

ICE (RFC5245) resolves the problem perfectly, and is the plan-of-record for
how to support the transition to IPv6 for SIP
(draft-ietf-sipping-v6-transition).  ICE does connectivity checks, so it
figures out if IPv4 or IPv6 (or UDP, or TCP) is working between two peers,
and uses that path.  ICE can be performed while the phone is ringing, so
does not delay call set up.  ICE was one of the inspirations for Happy
Eyeballs.

There is resistance to ICE because of (a) its complexity and (b) a
perception that "IPv6 works fine on my network", which has fostered the
creation of several other solutions, including an idea we nicknamed "Happy
Eardrums", draft-wing-dispatch-v6-migration, which we have since abandoned.
ICE does more, and it does a better job.

-d

> Regards,
> /Olle
> 
> Ref: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sipping-v6-transition-07
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops