Elwell, John wrote:
[JRE] And also, P2 should be just routing on the Route header field,
because there is still something in the stack. So it would have to be a
misbehaving proxy to get it wrong.
I had always assumed that as long as there was something in the Route
stack the R-URI would be left alone.
But if you read 3261 carefully it nowhere says that. The rules for doing
translations on the R-URI (if you are responsible for it) are
independent of the routing rules. So it seems valid (maybe mandatory,
though that isn't clear to me) that you might translate the R-URI even
though there is a Route header, and *then* route based on the Route header.
Paul
But in any case, I thought UALR was meant to be applied only on the last
hop (or the last set of hops) from the domain proxy to the UAS, so once
you invoke it there should not be any more retargeting or rerouting
proxies on the path. Maybe the domain proxy is never able to be certain
of this.
John
Though I'm probably thinking in circles - this whole topic
makes my head hurt. :)
-hadriel
-----Original Message-----
From: Elwell, John [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 10:28 AM
To: Hadriel Kaplan; Dean Willis; IETF SIP List
Subject: RE: [Sip] Vocabulary and problem statement forRequest-
URI,retargeting, and SIP routing (long, but read it!)
Hadriel,
Well, I have been having a side thread with Christer and
Hans Erik, and
the only difference other than syntax that they could
convince me of was
support for UAs that do not register, in that with
loose-route you would
need additional provisioning in the domain proxy to say that the UA
(gateway or whatever) supports loose-route. Given that you
would need
provisioning in the proxy anyway for such UAs, I didn't see
this as a
big deal, but it is a difference.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: Hadriel Kaplan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 18 January 2008 15:15
To: Elwell, John; Dean Willis; IETF SIP List
Subject: RE: [Sip] Vocabulary and problem statement
forRequest-URI,retargeting, and SIP routing (long, but read it!)
Hey John,
Inline...
-----Original Message-----
From: Elwell, John [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 2:48 AM
But in the re-targeting scenario such as:
RTRG RRT
+---+ +---+
|R1 | |R2 |
B /+---+\ C E /+---+\ F
RT / \ RT RT / \ RT
+---+/ \+---+ D +---+/ \+---+
|P1 | |P2 +---+P3 | |P4 |
A /+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+\ G
/ \
+---+/
\+---+
|UAC|
|UAS|
+---+
+---+
UA-Loose-routing wants the req-uri seen on connection
"C" I think.
To header gives you A.
PCPID gives you E.
Hist-Info gives you A,B,C,D,E,F.
[JRE] According to Dean's definition of RT, it does not
change the
Request-URI (only the Route header field presumably, or
maybe not even
that).
So C, D and E are the same. Also A and B are the same, and
F and G are
the same.
So I think:
- UA-Loose-routing gives you C/D/E
- To gives you A/B
- PCPID gives you C/D/E
- Target gives you C/D/E
- Hist-info gives you A/B, C/D/E and F/G.
Yes, I agree that is the *theory*. :)
I drew it that way though so we could argue about what the
UAS/UALR-draft _wants_ to happen vs. what _will_ happen if P2
or P3 are not purely RT's and didn't support a new draft.
(Since it seemed the conversation was going that way
previously on this list, for example when Christer pointed
out the difference between Target and PCPID)
For example, I think there is more than just a syntax
difference between Christer's sip-target-uri-delivery draft
(STUD?) and Jonathan's UALR approach. Though I have no idea
which one is better.
-hadriel
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip
Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip
Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip
Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip
