Subject: RE: [Sipping] RE: How to indicate trunk groups in URI?

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 14:20:32 -0500

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vijay K. Gurbani [mailto:[email-masked]]
>
> Absence any guidelines, we will stumble on ahed making ad-hoc 
> decisions on how to do this.  

Right. I was getting there. First, I wanted to make sure that the
virtual-host solution met everyone's requirements. If we can
get some agreement on that, my next step will be proposing that
we put together a BCP describing this mechanism and publish it as
an informational SIPPING draft.

/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

---

From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 16:39:35 -0500

Adam Roach wrote:
> virtual-host solution met everyone's requirements. 

Let's wait a couple of days to hear from other people.  I will ping
our gateway folks as well.

Regards,

- vijay
-- 
Vijay K. Gurbani  vkg@{lucent.com,research.bell-labs.com,acm.org}
Wireless Networks Group/Internet Software and Services
Lucent Technologies/Bell Labs Innovations, 2000 Lucent Lane, Rm 6G-440
Naperville, Illinois 60566     Voice: +1 630 224 0216

---

From: "David R. Oran" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 07:41:10 -0400

> our gateway folks as well.
While the virtual host solution will work, it relies on naming conventions 
which must either be standardized or implementers must have pretty 
user-programmable URI construction code in their gateway UACs and proxies 
to deal with the possibility that different vendors use different naming 
conventions for how to encode the trunk group in some part of the domain 
name. It also obviously requires that both UA's/proxies *and* dns be 
provisioned consistently.

I therefore think it would be simpler and more interoperable to standardize 
a URI parameter for carrying trunk group information. While we're at it, 
CIC (carrier identification code) ought to be handled similarly.

There is also the issue of whether we need to also standardize a way to 
convey INCOMING trunk group and CIC so that proxies can do 
source/destination routing based on both incoming trunk group and/or 
carrier and destination. If we come up with a URI parameter and standardize 
it, we can allow these parameters on both the requestURI and the Contact 
header of a request thereby assassinating dual avians with one mineral 
cluster.

Dave.
> - vijay

-----------------------------------------------------------
David R. Oran                   Phone/Fax: +1 978 264 2048
Cisco Systems                   VoIP: +1 408 571 4576
7 Ladyslipper Lane              Email: [email-masked]
Acton, MA 01720