Re:[Sip] Record-Route, Path, Service Route, and Multi-Homed Proxies

[feng zhang <y01317@njupt.edu.cn>]

Hi Dean,

>This odd thing has two serious implications:
>
>1) UA2 cannot sign the route set, because it gets edited by P in the
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>response. Consequently, end-to-end protection of the route set can not
~~~~~~~~~~ I can not understand this point. If UA2 writes Route:192.168.2.1 in
           BYE to UA1, the P will not change the Route header, the P only
           strip this Route header in BYE, and passes it to UA1, NO route
           set is changed. I dont know why UA2 cannot sign the route set?
           u say P will edit the route set in response, and can u give me 
           an example? As I think , UA1 send 200 OK to UA2's BYE , the message
           200 OK has no Route header, what can P edit this response ?
           I am really confused. Thanks u very much!

>be supported by the protocol. We've just broken the openness principle
>and the end-to-end principle. Oops.
>
>2) P must implement special "multihomed" logic. On the request phase, it
>goes through output interface calculation and writes the output
>interface into the route. It must then inspect all responses, grep for
>an input interface, and selectively edit them to reference the correct
>output interface. This is a CPU drag. 
>

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
Use sipping@ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip