Subject: [Sipping] Cheaper Loop Detection (was Re: Deprecate loop detection, was: Re: [Sip] bis draft: Pre-existing Route headers)

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 09:57:20 -0600

At 11:16 AM on January 8, 2002, Jonathan Rosenberg wrote:

> I am beginning to wonder, however, whether or not this whole business
> of loop detection is worth the trouble. The Max-Forwards mechanism
> provides a sufficient way to ensure that they don't persist forever.
> The loop detection mecahnism is more efficient, but given the
> probability of occurence in a well-engineered network, I'm not sure
> its worth all the pain it causes, and it does cause pain. A proxy has
> to hash over a bunch of headers that it otherwise might be able to
> ignore...

I agree -- this does cause pain. Given that we now realize that
Max-Forwards is an insufficient mechanism for solving the problems
relating to looping, This needs a lighter-weight mechanism than Via
parsing. Thankfully, we now have a concrete proposal on the table for a
lighter-weight mechanism. We've already accepted that we must implement
loop detection. Let's talk about reducing the pain Jonathan mentions.

/a

_______________________________________________
Sipping mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping
This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP
Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip
Use [email-masked] for new developments of core SIP