Re: [martini] Implications of multiple AOR/contact mapping

"Tyler Parkin" <tyler@foxfam.com> Fri, 05 February 2010 13:46 UTC

Return-Path: <tyler@foxfam.com>
X-Original-To: martini@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: martini@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA7B528C154 for <martini@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Feb 2010 05:46:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.949
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.949 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.651, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bxpuEvuwBKpT for <martini@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Feb 2010 05:46:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp02.atlngahp.sys.nuvox.net (smtp-out2.atlngahp.sys.nuvox.net [70.43.63.19]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABAFC28C12E for <martini@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Feb 2010 05:46:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from LT6KW7CD1 (fw-nat.it.nuvox.net [216.215.144.201]) by smtp02.atlngahp.sys.nuvox.net (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id o15DlMdX022037; Fri, 5 Feb 2010 08:47:22 -0500
Message-ID: <00cf01caa669$be167480$150610ac@CORPORATE.VOX.NET>
From: Tyler Parkin <tyler@foxfam.com>
To: Dean Willis <dean.willis@softarmor.com>, Jack Burton <jsburton@cablevision.com>
References: <BLU137-DS4BA063B210729FEAF0A6093580@phx.gbl><77A7ADEB-FCA6-4702-B04B-F6F9DF69DC8B@softarmor.com><0AF054D1-2E3E-41F4-859F-4F340E666DB9@dsauder.com><4B680653.6D98.00CB.0@cablevision.com><A7FC8CE8C850E04B9081EAB2DEF441ED25D7C608@CBYMBX01.corp.cbeyond.net><4B68270C.6D98.00CB.0@cablevision.com> <0E006E68-093A-4D22-ADE2-A54F3AB4B93E@softarmor.com>
Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2010 08:47:21 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type="response"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3598
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350
Cc: martini@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [martini] Implications of multiple AOR/contact mapping
X-BeenThere: martini@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of en-mass SIP PBX registration mechanisms <martini.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/martini>, <mailto:martini-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/martini>
List-Post: <mailto:martini@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:martini-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/martini>, <mailto:martini-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2010 13:46:39 -0000

New to the list so if I'm missing something, sorry about that.  If I 
understand correctly, the assertion is that with 
draft-roach-martini-gin-00/imlicit reg, the PBX sends a single AoR to the 
SSP which (because of it's provisioning) automatically activates all the 
associated records in it's location database and just replies to the PBX 
with a generic ();bnc to indicate success.

Provisioning aside, I tend to agree that the PBX needs to be informed of 
which numbers the SSP considers to be implicitly registered for that AoR. 
I'd hate to lose functionality by moving to implicit/bulk reg.  For example, 
if I register 100 numbers individually and 10 of them fail, then I stop 
subsequent subscribes/notifies for those numbers and, in the case of some 
PBX's, even present to the end user that their line isn't working.

Provisioning disconnects happen all the time between PBX's and SSP's as a 
result of MACD's.  I'm not proposing MARTINI resolve procedural issues, but 
a lack of two way acknowledgement of which numbers both parties consider 
active is a loss of functionality.

I realize draft-roach-martini-gin-00 suggests a NOTIFY request to 
communicate status.  To me there's a difference between a negative/failed 
registration state vs. relying on a PBX to interrogate the SSP after the 
fact.

Regards,

Tyler

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dean Willis" <dean.willis@softarmor.com>
To: "Jack Burton" <jsburton@cablevision.com>
Cc: <martini@ietf.org>
Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 12:29 AM
Subject: Re: [martini] Implications of multiple AOR/contact mapping


>
> On Feb 2, 2010, at 7:22 AM, Jack Burton wrote:
>
>> How does the PBX learn its outbound numbers and DIDs when it  registers? 
>> It needs to know this for more than just registration.   I am not 
>> counting on registration as a configuration tool, just as a  way to 
>> authenticate and identify the IP-PBX to the SSP.
>>
>
> The PBX does NOT learn its numbers through registration. It has to  know 
> them already so it can register them and so the SSP knows what IP  address 
> and port to send calls to. The question of "How does the PBX  learn its 
> numbers" is entirely outside the current scope of MARTINI.
>
> --
> Dean
>
> _______________________________________________
> martini mailing list
> martini@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/martini