[SR-Users] [sr-dev] Testing SIP Outbound / RFC5626 (Was: Freezing for next major release)

[Olle E. Johansson]

10 jan 2013 kl. 11:50 skrev Richard Brady <rnbrady at gmail.com>:

> Also can a flow fail temporarily? 
> 
> For example a broadband router with a NAT timeout of 60 seconds and a UA with a keep-alive interval of 120s. Would the flow succeed for the first 60 seconds after each keep-alive and then fail for 60 seconds until the next keepalive? 
Yes. That's a misconfigured ua, isn't it... The UA will have to make sure to manage connections properly so at least one of the two are always open and working...
Outbound is all about pushing responsiblity for the flows to the UA.

> 
> And would this generate a 430 or would it generate a different response code?
> 
> On the other hand this quote from the RFC makes it sounds like 430 represents a permanent condition:
> 
>   If the flow no longer exists, the proxy SHOULD
>    send a 430 (Flow Failed) response to the request.

Well, Outbound is very focused on TCP. It's alive or dead. It doesn't behave like UDP.

/O
> 
> Richard
> 
> On 8 January 2013 09:55, Olle E Johanson <olle at ozone.webway.se> wrote:
> 
> 8 jan 2013 kl. 10:43 skrev Peter Dunkley <peter.dunkley at crocodile-rcs.com>:
> 
>> Hi Juha,
>> 
>> A few months ago there was a discussion on IRC and the sr-dev list about what is needed for outbound.  This requirement to remove broken contacts was presented then by someone as something that (although not explicit in the RFC) is needed.
> 
> Just a clarification:
> 
> Section 9.3 says that 
> "Bob's authoritative proxy first tries the flow to EP1,
>    but EP1 no longer has a flow to Bob, so it responds with a 430 (Flow
>    Failed) response.  The proxy removes the stale registration and tries
>    the next binding for the same instance."
> 
> But it is not mentioned in the server handling section of the Outbound RFC.
> 
> /O
> 
>> 
>> If a flow is broken, particularly one over TCP where the connection is established from the UAC to the edge proxy, then it will never work again.  As such it is extremely wasteful to continue to try and use that flow (in preference to one that will work) for each new dialog forming request.  Further, as re-REGISTER times can be quite long, not removing broken contacts could lead to a significant/growing number of dead contacts (all of which will be tried for each new dialog forming request) in the location table.
>> 
>> There is an unregister() function in the registrar module, there are also the reg_(fetch|free)_contacts() functions in the registrar module.  None of these appear to do quite what is required.
>> 
>> Peter
>> 
>> 
>> On Tue, 2013-01-08 at 04:46 +0200, Juha Heinanen wrote:
>>> 
>>> Peter Dunkley writes:
>>> 
>>> > One requirement of an outbound capable registrar is that if a flow fails
>>> > (edge proxy returns a 430) the registrar should realise that the flow is
>>> > now dead and remove that contact binding from its database so it is not
>>> > used again as well as trying the next contact.  I can't see anything that
>>> > will do this?  Is this missing?
>>> 
>>> peter,
>>> 
>>> i didn't find in rfc5626 a requirement that registrar should remove 430
>>> flow contact, but, if there is such a requirement, in my opinion removal
>>> should be done from failure route in the script by a function that
>>> removes the contact.
>>> 
>>> a similar thing was discussed a while back (see below).
>>> 
>>> -- juha
>>> 
>>> From: Juha Heinanen <jh at tutpro.com>
>>> Sender: sr-dev-bounces at lists.sip-router.org
>>> To: sr-dev at lists.sip-router.org
>>> Subject: [sr-dev] git:master: usrloc(k): keep time of the last keepalive for
>>> 	natted UDP contacts
>>> Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 17:08:51 +0300
>>> 
>>> Klaus wrote:
>>> 
>>>    Why only UDP? Are TCP contacts removed when the TCP connections is closed?
>>> 
>>>    IMO there should also be a mechanism to remove ALL expired unresponsive 
>>>    contacts.
>>> 
>>> how about the following for tcp contacts:
>>> 
>>> - set_forward_no_connect();
>>> - if t_relay() fails because tcp connection does not exist,
>>>   unregister the AoR/contact
>>> 
>>> what would be needed is a find out that t_relay() failed due to
>>> non-existing connection and a script function to do un-registration of
>>> an AoR/contact.
>>> 
>>> perhaps both of these two things already exist?
>>> 
>>> -- juha
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> sr-dev mailing list
>>> sr-dev at lists.sip-router.org
>>> http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev
>> 
>> -- 
>> Peter Dunkley
>> Technical Director
>> Crocodile RCS Ltd
>> _______________________________________________
>> sr-dev mailing list
>> sr-dev at lists.sip-router.org
>> http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list
> sr-users at lists.sip-router.org
> http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list
> sr-users at lists.sip-router.org
> http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sip-router.org/pipermail/sr-users/attachments/20130110/bc992bff/attachment.htm>