[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Outbound-05: Registrar checking all Path headers for "ob" (was: "RE: [Sip] Outbound issues: slides 9 and 10 - Why does every proxyneedto support outbound?")
Hi Rohan,
Chapter 6 of outbound-05 still says that the registrar shall check ALL
Path headers for the "ob" URI parameter, eventhough I think we agreed
it's enough to only check the Path of the edge proxy.
Or, is there a reason why all proxies in the path must insert Path with
"ob"?
Regards,
Christer
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christer Holmberg (JO/LMF)
> [mailto:christer.holmberg at ericsson.com]
> Sent: 14. elokuuta 2006 13:39
> To: Rohan Mahy
> Cc: IETF SIP List
> Subject: RE: [Sip] Outbound issues: slides 9 and 10 - Why
> does every proxyneedto support outbound?
>
>
> Hi Rohan,
>
> >>>Christer, please read the slides. The issue we are trying
> to detect
> >>>is described in slide 9. The UA sends through an
> outbound-proxy that
> >>>adds a Path, but does not support outbound. The registrar
> needs to
> >>>detect that.
> >>
> >>I am not arguing against that. I am simply commenting on
> the proposed
> >>mechanisms that YOU wrote.
> >>
> >>YOU said that ALL Path headers (not only the one inserted by the
> >>outbound proxy) must contain the ob parameter, and I question that.
> >>
> >>YOU said that the registrar must start comparing Vias with
> Paths, and
> >>I propose a way to avoid that.
> >
> >Right. You should be able to compare only the first Path
> and the first
> Via. I guess there is no reason for the other Path headers
> to have ;ob.
>
> Wouldn't it be easier, and "cleaner", to say that the
> outbound proxy MUST always (no matter what domain it belongs
> to) Path with "ob"?
>
> Regards,
>
> Christer
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 9, 2006, at 9:46, Christer Holmberg ((JO/LMF)) wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> A couple of questions:
> >>
> >>> The issues on slide 9 (how does a registrar verify that an edge
> >>> proxy
> >> supports outbound) and slide 10 (what does >"Supported: outbound"
> >> mean) deal with detecting that all the required hops support
> outbound.
> >
> >> Slide
> >>> 9 specifically uncovered a problem with outbound proxies
> that add a
> >> Path URI but don't include a flow token.
> >>>
> >>> The proposed solution is as follows. If a proxy inserts a Path
> >>> header
> >> with a flow token consistent with the rules d
> >>> escribed in outbound, it MUST add the ;ob parameter to
> the proxy URI
> >> that has the flow token.
> >>>
> >>> The registrar verifies that any Path header URIs contain the ;ob
> >> parameter. If there are any Path URIs without the ob
> >>> parameter, the registrar does not return Supported: outbound.
> >>
> >> [CHH] Why would every Path header need to contain the ;ob
> parameter?
> >> The
> >> REGISTER request may traverse, in addition to the outbound proxy,
> >> multiple proxies which insert a Path header. Do all these proxies
> >> really need to support outbound?
> >>
> >>> Furthermore, the registrar needs to check that the first
> hop after
> >>> the
> >> UAC is represented in the Path list (unless the
> >>> registrar recognizes that the first hop after the UAC is
> in the same
> >> domain and doesn't need to include Path URIs with a
> >>> flow token). Note that this implies that whatever the
> proxy puts in
> >> the Via (IP address or FQDN), it must put the same
> >>> hostname in the Path header (but there is no need for a
> complete URI
> >> comparison). If the first hop is not correctly
> >>> represented, the registrar ignores the reg-id parameter
> and does not
> >> return Supported: outbound.
> >>
> >> [CHH] Isn't it much easier to mandate the outbound proxy to always
> >> insert a Path header?
> >>
> >> OR, another possibility is that the outbound proxy, if it detects
> >> that
> >
> >> the UAC supports outbound, insert some option-tag of itself in the
> >> Supported header, to indicate to the registrar that it supports
> >> outbound. Then the registrar does not need start looking
> at the Path
> >> headers.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Christer
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> The implication of this is that an outbound-proxy that supports
> >> outbound needs to support Path and flow tokens for
> registrations to
> >> all foreign domains. Inside the same domain, the
> first-hop proxy and
>
> >> the registrar can still use Path to communicate with each
> other, but
> >> they can use some other private mechanism to disaggregate this
> >> functionality.
> >>
> >> thanks,
> >> -rohan
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Sip mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
> >> This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use
> >> sip-implementors at cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip Use
> >> sipping at ietf.org 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
> sip-implementors at cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
> Use sipping at ietf.org 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
> sip-implementors at cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
> Use sipping at ietf.org 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 sip-implementors at cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
Use sipping at ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip