Subject: [Sip] Outbound: keep-alive, outbound and 3489bis

From: "Christer Holmberg \(JO/LMF\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 19:51:07 +0200

Hi,

A few issues on the outbound draft:

Q1:
-----

The outbound draft currently defines the usage of STUN for NAT
keep-alive.

However, since NAT keep-alive has been added as a STUN usage to the STUN
specification (3489bis) itself, I guess the outbound draft only needs to
refer to 3489bis and "apply" it to SIP, e.g. by defining the keepalive
URI parameter.

Q2:
-----

If a client supports STUN for keep-alive, but not the other parts of the
outbound extension (instance-id, reg-id etc), it will not insert the
instance-id etc, but it will still include the 'keepalive' URI
parameter.

Now, the outbound draft does not FORBID this, as far as I can see, but I
wonder if we more clearly should point that out in the draft.

OR, the SIP usage of STUN keep-alive should be described in a separate
draft, now when the usage itself is part of 3489bis.

OR, if I only use STUN for keep-alive, without the rest of the outbound
stuff, should I not use the 'keepalive' parameter in the first place?

Regards,

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

---

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 19:51:20 -0400

I think we should allow the STUN keepalives without the rest of the 
stuff. Its a handy tool for inter-server keepalives in cases where there 
are no NAT or firewalls.

-Jonathan R.

Christer Holmberg (JO/LMF) wrote:

> The outbound draft currently defines the usage of STUN for NAT keep-alive.
> 
> instance-id etc, but it will still include the 'keepalive' URI parameter.
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 

-- 
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                   600 Lanidex Plaza
Cisco Fellow                                   Parsippany, NJ 07054-2711
Cisco Systems
[email-masked]                              FAX:   (973) 952-5050
http://www.jdrosen.net                         PHONE: (973) 952-5000
http://www.cisco.com

---

From: "Francois Audet" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 19:32:39 -0500

I agree.

It would be nice if in Outbound, there was some sort of indication on
what
is required to be there if only the keepalive is done.

Maybe a little paragraph on this in the section on keep-alive in
sip-outbound-04
would help. I think it would really help to have some guidance on this
to answer the question that Christer has.

(Besides the use that Jonathan points to, it could be useful in certain 
environments to phase out PINGs, short-lived registration, CRLFs and
other
legacy mechanisms. I can see an option on a phone to use STUN-in-SIP for

keep-alive as implementable today).

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Rosenberg [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 16:51
> To: Christer Holmberg (JO/LMF)
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [Sip] Outbound: keep-alive, outbound and 3489bis
> 
> 
> > If a client supports STUN for keep-alive, but not the other 
> parts of 
> > the
> > Now, the outbound draft does not FORBID this, as far as I 
> can see, but 
> > I
> > Use [email-masked] for questions on 
> current sip Use 
> > [email-masked] for new developments on the application of sip
> 
> -- 
> Use [email-masked] for questions on current 
> sip Use [email-masked] for new developments on the 
> application of sip
>