[SIPForum-techwg] SIPconnect/1.1 v03 onlist - section 7 support forregistration

[Jamie Palmer]

John,

I like this suggestion.

Registration mode is intended dynamically addressed PBXs.

Static mode is for statically addressed PBXs.

Is there a way to use these qualifiers in the MUST/MAY/SHOULD language that will carry any weight in the spec?

JBP


On 04/02/09 12:39 PM, "Elwell, John" <john.elwell at siemens.com> wrote:

Perhaps it should be based on whether dynamic IP addresses can be used.
This has been stated as a reason for needing registration mode. Larger
SIP-PBXs might be intended for use with static IP addresses, in which
case the argument for supporting registration mode is weaker.

I also think that NATs have to be considered. We currently have the
following in 7.1.3:

"Any IP address [JRE1] contained within the headers and message bodies
(e.g. SDP) of SIP messages exchanged between the Service Provider and
Enterprise networks MUST be a publicly routable address[JRE2], unless
the Service Provider network is providing an implicit NAT traversal
function or the two are using a private VPN-style address space.

This requirement implies that any "fix up" functions required for NAT
traversal have already been performed either by the device originating
the message (e.g. using STUN/TURN/ICE, static configuration, etc.) or by
another network element (e.g. SIP-aware firewall, Session Border
Controller, etc.) before the message is permitted to exit the Service
Provider / Enterprise network edge."

This text does not appear to address the issue of how an SP-SSE delivers
a request to the SIP-PBX when the SIP-PBX is behind a NAT. Registration
mode provides one solution to this. Another solution is to have a
permanent NAT binding, but we don't have any statement on this.

John


> -----Original Message-----
> From: techwg-bounces at sipforum.org
> [mailto:techwg-bounces at sipforum.org] On Behalf Of Spencer Dawkins
> Sent: 04 February 2009 15:28
> To: techwg at sipforum.org
> Subject: [SIPForum-techwg] SIPconnect/1.1 v03 onlist -
> section 7 support forregistration
>
> (Just a word of administrivia - we had some topics at last
> Friday's telechat that we said needed to be discussed onlist
> - I'll be posting a few of these today)
>
> Current text in Section 7 says:
>
>
> The required support for each mode is shown in Table 1.
>
>
>
> Mode
>
>       Registration
>
>       Static
>
>
> SIP-PBX
>
>       MUST support
>
>       MAY support
>
>
> SP-SSE
>
>       MUST support
>
>       MUST support
>
>
>
> Table 1: Required Support for SIPconnect/1.1 Modes
>
>
>
> Spencer: Alan has challenged Registration at MUST level for
> all SIP-PBXes, regardless of size. His concern makes sense to
> me. Comments? Need to discuss onlist (did not come to
> consensus on telechat) on next telechat.
>
>
>
> Obviously, we didn't come to agreement on last Friday's
> telechat, and we've been discussing onlist, but I wanted to
> put the discussions in terms of the current text.
>
> From the editor's perspective, what's in question is the MUST
> for the SIP-PBX to support Registration mode. Our choices are
> MUST, SHOULD (probably with an escape hatch based on size), and MAY.
>
> What should Table 1 say in this cell?
>
> Thanks,
>
> SPencer
>

_______________________________________________
techwg mailing list
Send mail to: techwg at sipforum.org
Unsubscribe or edit options at:  http://sipforum.org/mailman/listinfo/techwg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://sipforum.org/pipermail/techwg/attachments/20090204/51e5bad9/attachment-0001.html