Re: Dual registration without Outbound
Paul Kyzivat <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.sip |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Christer Holmberg wrote: > Hi, > >> I think I am missing something here. I presume that the knowledge of > the UA is limited to: >> - to proxy addresses >> - an AOR to register >> >> Presumably the address of the registrar is derived from the AOR to > register by removing the user part. So the UA, when >> registering, doesn't specify two different registrars. Whether there > are two or not is a function of how the proxy routes >> the register request. So whether the two registers for the same contact > go to one registrar or two is unknown to the UA. >> In some configurations this would give you redundancy, and in others it > would not. >> Then, what causes the UA to register two different contacts? Are the > wlan contact and the 3g contact registered to >> *different* AORs? If not I don't see the point. If anything, I would > expect that 3g and wlan represent access networks >> and hence differing proxies, not AORs or registrars. > > In the 3GPP case different contacts can be registered for the *SAME* > AOR. Not just in 3gpp. That should be true most anywhere. Typically they represent different UAs. The question is: why would a *single* UA establish two distinct contacts and register them for the same AOR? > And, as you say, the edge proxies may be "access network dependent", so > it may not even be possible to e.g. register the wlan contact via the 3g > edge proxy, etc. So you are saying that the contact addresses are themselves access network dependent??? So that the ip address of the contact is only accessible via a particular access network and proxy? This *really* isn't the internet, is it!!! Paul > Regards, > > Christer > > > > > > Thanks, > Paul > > Christer Holmberg wrote: >> Hi, >> >> > So, you want to register both contacts to both registars, right? >> > >> > Example: >> > >> > UA_Contact_wlan ----- OB_1 ----- REG_1 > UA_Contact_wlan ----- >> OB_1 ----- REG_2 >> > UA_Contact_3g ----- OB_2 ----- REG_1 >> > UA_Contact_3g ----- OB_2 ----- REG_2 >> >>> no, like this: >> > UA_Contact_wlan ----- OB_1 ----- REG_1 > UA_Contact_wlan ----- >> OB_2 ----- REG_2 >> > UA_Contact_3g ----- OB_1 ----- REG_1 >> > UA_Contact_3g ----- OB_2 ----- REG_2 >> >> Now, in your example, if OB_1 and REG_2 fail you don't still don't >> have redundancy :) >> >>> if outbound does not mandate that UA must register each contact with >> both ob proxies, my pleasant surprise was a too >>> early one and ob draft falls back to the useless bin. >> I don't have the spec in front of me, but I don't think it currently >> talks about multiple contacts. >> >> I guess this all comes back to Dean's question whether we need some >> new text into the draft. >> >> In order to avoid delaying the Outbound spec even more, I guess it >> could also be an extension draft:"Outbound with multiple contacts", or > >> something like that... >> >> Regards, >> >> Christer >> >> >> >> >> >> -- juha >> _______________________________________________ >> Sip mailing list https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip >> This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use >> [email protected] for questions on current sip Use >> [email protected] for new developments on the application of sip >> > _______________________________________________ > Sip mailing list https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip > This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol > Use [email protected] for questions on current sip > Use [email protected] for new developments on the application of sip > _______________________________________________ Sip mailing list https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use [email protected] for questions on current sip Use [email protected] for new developments on the application of sip