Hi Francois, >I'm saying a new draft on redundant registration is needed, >and we can leave outbound AS IS. > >I thought about this more. > >I think what it means, is NOT using "Supported: outbound", but using >the +sip.instance and reg-id in the REGISTER. Perhaps with a different >"Support: redundant-registrations" or whatever. > >The reg-ids will distinguish the multiple registrations. The >+sip.instance will correlate them.
Funny, but your proposal reminds me about the email which I sent to sip mailing list in Nov 2006: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sip/current/msg17495.html What I proposed that time was essentially this: ---- Outbound draft has bundled together two different things that actually are orthogonal, both as problems and as solutions too. The only reason to keep them together in one single spec is that in some environments it makes sense to use them together, but the problem is that in some other environments separation would be desirable. Those two items could be described like this: - A mechanism with which an UA would be able to maintain a persistent flow through a NAT/firewall towards an outbound proxy, keep the flow alive and monitor its state. The mechanism would also define how the authoritative and edge proxies would use the persistent flow and Path header for forwarding incoming requests to the UA. - A mechanism with which an UA instance would be able to achieve high availability towards its home domain, by maintaining multiple simultaneous registrations without the need to receive multiple forked copies of a single incoming request. This resiliency would enable the UA to protect its connectivity against edge proxy failures or access network connectivity failures. This mechanism would introduce the reg-id parameter to Contact and allow the authoritative proxy to forward requests to the UA using the set of registered Contacts and corresponding Paths. ---- I proposed to split Outbound to two drafts along with those lines: a) flow keepalive draft b) multiple registration draft Interestingly enough I find the proposed flow keepalive draft to highly correlate to the Outbound original requirements (from Keith's recent email): 1. Must be able to detect that a UA supports these mechanisms. 2. Support UAs behind NATs. 3. Support TLS to a UA without a stable DNS name or IP address. 4. Detect failure of a connection and be able to correct for this. 5. Support many UAs simultaneously rebooting. 6. Support a NAT rebooting or resetting. 7. Minimize initial startup load on a proxy. 8. Support architectures with edge proxies. On the other hand, the multiple reg draft does not have any direct relation to these requirements, even if you could argue multiple registrations would be needed to make the solution more robust against NAT reboots (item 6). To me it really attacks SIP proxy reboots or any network failures for multihomed UAs, something _not_ within the original requirements of Outbound. >I think what it means, is NOT using "Supported: outbound", but using >the +sip.instance and reg-id in the REGISTER. Perhaps with a different >"Support: redundant-registrations" or whatever. > >The reg-ids will distinguish the multiple registrations. The >+sip.instance will correlate them. The only real difference between our proposals is that you suggest usage of +sip.instance and reg-id to be defined in a rather similar way in two drafts: Outbound and a new one. I was proposing to move all that stuff to another draft so that implementations could implement support for keepalives and multiple registration either separately or combined, depending on the problems they try to solve. P.S. Personally I believe all this discussion is just too late, decisions have been taken years ago and most of the WG members are probably too tired with this subject to do any work for it. Regards, Erkki >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >Behalf Of ext Francois Audet >Sent: 08.October.2008 19:48 >To: Juha Heinanen >Cc: [email protected]; Paul Kyzivat; Christer Holmberg; DRAGE,Keith >(Keith); Dean Willis >Subject: Re: [Sip] Dual registration without Outbound > >No. > >I'm saying a new draft on redundant registration is needed, >and we can leave >outbound AS IS. > >I thought about this more. > >I think what it means, is NOT using "Supported: outbound", but using >the +sip.instance and reg-id in the REGISTER. Perhaps with a different >"Support: redundant-registrations" or whatever. > >The reg-ids will distinguish the multiple registrations. The >+sip.instance >will correlate them. > >This will be in line with what we did with GRUU which also can use the >+sip.instance. > >A new draft describing this should be fairly simple to do, and >we wouldn't >derail the process, and it would be very much in line with >sip-outbound. > >Makes sense? > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Juha Heinanen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2008 23:54 >> To: Audet, Francois (SC100:3055) >> Cc: DRAGE, Keith (Keith); Dean Willis; Paul Kyzivat; >> [email protected]; Christer Holmberg >> Subject: Re: [Sip] Dual registration without Outbound >> >> Francois Audet writes: >> >> > Rather, I think this should be a new draft, and it should >> be > independent from outbound. >> >> so do you now finally agree to base outbound drfat on two new >> drafts that are also independent of outbound: dialog >> connection re-use and keepalive? >> >> -- juha >> >_______________________________________________ >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 > _______________________________________________ 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
