Subject: [Sip] draft-mahy-sipping-connect-reuse-reqs-00

From: "Sean Olson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 10:54:59 -0700

This is a very interesting problem. Should the requirements
include the ability to deal with intermediaries such as
NAT/firewalls that may not strictly be SIP entities? Also, I 
wonder if the proxy-proxy connection problem is as critical
as the UAC-proxy connection reuse problem. Might SCTP be a
better solution for proxy-proxy connection management?

Thanks,

Sean Olson
Microsoft
http://www.microsoft.com/rtc

_______________________________________________
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: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2002 11:04:57 +0300

Sean,

> better solution for proxy-proxy connection management?

Both SCTP and TCP have the problem described in this draft, IMO.

However, this problem would be solvable providing the proper port number
in the Record-Route entry. Assuming that SIP implementations check if
they have an existing connection with a transport address (destination
IP address and port number) before opening another one, everything would
work fine.

I see that the mechanism described in the draft has the advantage of
keeping the sender from worring about which ephemeral port is used to
send the request. Is there any other advantage if compared with
Record-Route entries with port numbers? If so, it should be discussed in
the draft.

In addition, I would add to the section about the problem statement that
if two SIP entities establish two TCP/SCTP connections rather than one,
the congestion avoidance data is not shared by the connections. This may
trigger a too aggressive behavior or a too conservative behavior ehrn
compared to the one achieved by using only one connection.

Gonzalo

---

From: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2002 11:30:22 +0300

Before I had missed that this draft is supposed to fill the role of the
old Translate header in the old sip-nat draft. I believe that this
should be mentioned, since it is an important advantage over the
Record-Route mechanism.

Gonzalo

Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:
> 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 new developments of core SIP

-- 
Gonzalo Camarillo         Phone :  +358  9 299 33 71
Oy L M Ericsson Ab        Mobile:  +358 40 702 35 35
Telecom R&D               Fax   :  +358  9 299 30 52
FIN-02420 Jorvas          Email :  [email-masked]
Finland                   http://www.hut.fi/~gonzalo

---

From: Christer Holmberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2002 16:29:57 +0300

Hi,

RFC3261/bis-9 mainly talks about using a single connection (or, one in each
direction) for a single transaction, and the connect-reuse draft talks about
being able to use a single connection for messages in both direction, for a
single session. Sometimes, however, when we talk about "reuse of connection"
we mean when a single connection (or, one in each direction) is used for
multiple sessions. I think it would be a good idea to mention that that kind
of "reuse" is out of the scope of the draft. Otherwise the draft subject
should more clear indicate what kind of reuse it refers to...

Of course, once a single connection is established, according to the
connect-reuse draft, it MAY be used for multiple sessions, but that's not the
scope of the draft, so...

Regards,

Christer Holmberg
Ericsson Finland