Hi, >I guess the problem arises when you want to do a single REGISTER request for both instances. If I the use case correctly, the UA would send two REGISTER requests (one on each interface) and >both REGISTERs would have the two Contacts (one for each instance-id). Something like this: > >First REGISTER to Outbound-proxy #1 > > REGISTER sip:example.com SIP/2.0 > Via: SIP/2.0/TCP 1.1.1.1;branch=z9hG4bKnashds7-1 > From: Bob <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;tag=7F94778B653B-1 > To: Bob <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Call-ID: 16CB75F21C70-1 > CSeq: 1 REGISTER > Supported: path, outbound > Route: <sip:ep1.example.com;lr> > Contact: <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED];transport=tcp>;reg-id=1 > ;+sip.instance="<urn:uuid:00000000-0000-1000-8000-AABBCCDDEEFF>" > Contact: <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED];transport=tcp>;reg-id=2 > ;+sip.instance="<urn:uuid:00000000-0000-1000-8000-BBCCDDEEFF00>" > >Second REGISTER to Outbound-proxy #2 > > REGISTER sip:example.com SIP/2.0 > Via: SIP/2.0/TCP 2.2.2.2;branch=z9hG4bKnashds7-2 > From: Bob <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;tag=7F94778B653B-2 > To: Bob <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Call-ID: 16CB75F21C70-2 > CSeq: 1 REGISTER > Supported: path, outbound > Route: <sip:ep2.example.com;lr> > Contact: <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED];transport=tcp>;reg-id=1 > ;+sip.instance="<urn:uuid:00000000-0000-1000-8000-BBCCDDEEFF00>" > Contact: <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED];transport=tcp>;reg-id=2 > ;+sip.instance="<urn:uuid:00000000-0000-1000-8000-AABBCCDDEEFF>" > >Thus the UA could receive requests for either Contact on either of the two outbound flows. > >Is having two UA instances in the same request legal with the current text?
Isn't the edge proxy always going to send incoming request (towards the UA) to the address/port where the REGISTER came from, in order for the request to traverse the NAT? So, I don't think you can perform the kind of "third party registration" which your example shows. Regards, Christer -----Original Message----- From: Elwell, John [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 11:02 AM To: Bob Penfield; Christer Holmberg; Juha Heinanen; [email protected]; Paul Kyzivat; Dean Willis Subject: RE: [Sip] Dual registration without Outbound > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Bob Penfield > Sent: 14 October 2008 15:41 > To: Christer Holmberg; Juha Heinanen; [email protected]; Paul Kyzivat; Dean > Willis > Subject: Re: [Sip] Dual registration without Outbound > > For both GRUU and Outbound a given instance-id > (+sip-instance) actually represents a single UA contact instance > rather than just a single User Agent. The basic idea behind GRUU is > that a request addressed to a GRUU is forwarded by the proxy to a > specific Contact address. The goal is the same with Outbound but it > adds multiple flows/paths to that UA Contact. This is reflected in the > proxy procedures in both GRUU and Outbound. > > In both cases, the proxy does serial forking to Contacts with the same > instance-id. > > For GRUU it starts with the most-recently registered binding > (according to section 6.1 of GRUU): > > The proxy MUST select the most recently refreshed > contact. As with draft-ietf-sip-outbound, if a request to this > target fails with a 408 (Request Timeout) or 430 (Flow Failed) > response, the proxy SHOULD retry with the next most recently > refreshed contact. Furthermore, if the request fails with any > other response, the proxy MUST NOT retry on any other contacts > for this instance. > > For Outbound, it attempts the registered flows (according to section 7 > of Outbound): > > When a proxy uses the location service to look up a registration > binding and then proxies a request to a particular contact, it > selects a contact to use normally, with a few additional rules: > > o The proxy MUST NOT populate the target set with more than one > contact with the same AOR and instance-id at a time. > o If a request for a particular AOR and instance-id fails with a > 430 > (Flow Failed) response, the proxy SHOULD replace the failed > branch > with another target (if one is available) with the same AOR and > instance-id, but a different reg-id. > o If the proxy receives a final response from a branch other than > a > 408 (Request Timeout) or a 430 (Flow Failed) response, the proxy > MUST NOT forward the same request to another target representing > the same AOR and instance-id. The targeted instance has already > provided its response. > > Therefore, a User Agent that is registering multiple Contacts to allow > the possibility of parallel forking would need to have a separate > instance-id for each Contact. > > For User Agent's that have multiple interfaces, it could use the MAC > address of each interface to create a unique UUID URN for each > contact. > > Thus, the following scenario is possible: > > UA_Contact_wlan;+sip-instance=ID_1;reg-id=1 ----- OB_1 ----- REG_1 > UA_Contact_wlan;+sip-instance=ID_1;reg-id=2 ----- OB_2 ----- REG_2 > UA_Contact_3g;+sip-instance=ID_2;reg-id=1 ----- OB_1 ----- REG_1 > UA_Contact_3g;+sip-instance=ID_2;reg-id=2 ----- OB_2 ----- REG_2 > > Unfortunately, the current text in section 4.1 says that a UA has "an > Instance Identifier". [JRE] In an earlier email I was trying to say roughly the same thing, except the way I looked at it was that a device with multiple interfaces would logically contain a UA for each interface, and each UA would than have a single instance ID. In that case the text in section 4.1 still works. John _______________________________________________ Sip mailing list https://www.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 DISCLAIMER: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------------- The contents of this e-mail and any attachment(s) are confidential and intended for the named recipient(s) only. It shall not attach any liability on the originator or HCL or its affiliates. Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of HCL or its affiliates. Any form of reproduction, dissemination, copying, disclosure, modification, distribution and / or publication of this message without the prior written consent of the author of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error please delete it and notify the sender immediately. Before opening any mail and attachments please check them for viruses and defect. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Sip mailing list https://www.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
