1 / 8

IETF 68 draft-ietf-sip-outbound-08

IETF 68 draft-ietf-sip-outbound-08. Cullen Jennings. The key point. We need to finish this document. Change from -07 to -08. Some people on this list felt that we should use CRLF as the keep alive for TCP

arthurphillips
Download Presentation

IETF 68 draft-ietf-sip-outbound-08

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. IETF 68draft-ietf-sip-outbound-08 Cullen Jennings

  2. The key point • We need to finish this document

  3. Change from -07 to -08 • Some people on this list felt that we should use CRLF as the keep alive for TCP • Wrote text so that the WG could look at it and decide if this was the way they wanted to go • Added multiple keep alive mechanisms CRLF, STUN, TCP • Changed syntax of tags in URI to support this old: sip.example.com;keep-alive=stunnew: sip:example.com;keep-crlf;keep-stun

  4. Summary — The Good • Implementations that *only* do TCP, will not need to implement STUN • Implementations will not need to multiplex TCP and STUN

  5. Summary — The Bad • You have to do RFC 3263 transport resolution *before* you know what keep alive scheme to use • Tricky if application does keepalive processing and SIP stack does DNS • If outbound URI says sip:example.com;keep-crlf but NAPTR ends up selecting UDP. • You have no resulting keepalive mechanism and outbound will not work • It is complicated to handle corner cases • Outbound proxy set says “use STUN”, but when you option probe for that proxy says “use CRLF”

  6. Options • Option 1: Don’t do CRLF keep alive. Use text in (-07) version of draft. • Option 2: Keep text in this version (-08). • Recommendations • Cullen: Option 1 • Rohan: Option 2

  7. When does the client have to do keepalives? • Sometimes the server expects keepalives to detect client liveness, sometimes it doesn’t • Sometimes the client doesn’t need/want aggressive keepalives. (ex: not behind a NAT and wants to minimize battery consumption) • Proposal: • ;keepalive-timer parameter in URI means that the server needs the client to send supported keepalives according to the timing described in the draft. • absence of the parameter means that the client gets to decide when/if to send keepalives (but no more frequently than in the draft). • no longer a need for ;keep-tcp parameter. The client can just do these if ;keepalive-timer is absent.

  8. An Outbound Diet? Do we want to simplify this draft? • One type of instance ID (UUID) • One algorithm for flow tokens (the other one only works with SIPS) • The configuration of the URI indicates that you can do STUN. Incorrect configurations are considered an error, like sending SIP to the IMAP port • Drop advice about OPTION probing for stun (you could still do it if you wanted, just not discussed in spec) • In the current draft, if the flow works, then fails in the first 120 seconds, it is treated differently than after 120 seconds. Do we need this?

More Related