> -----Original Message----- > From: Juha Heinanen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 3:33 PM > To: Hadriel Kaplan > Cc: Francois Audet; [email protected]; Christer Holmberg > Subject: RE: [Sip] Draft: draft-holmberg-sip-keep-00.txt > > Hadriel Kaplan writes: > > > Actually, it will cause problems for the device sending STUN, because > > that next-hop proxy will (rightly) consider it a malformed attack and > > blacklist the sender. > > if proxy supports stun, it can recognize that the request is a stun > requests and not an attack.
Right, but the whole thing here is the UA doesn't know if the proxy supports STUN/CRLF, or is legacy. If the UA does draft-outbound and so does the proxy, it can find out; if it does draft-sip-keep, it can find out. If the UA finds out the proxy can't do it, then it will not do it. > > But it's also because by letting the next-hop proxy know the sender > > can send STUN or CRLF keepalives means the next-hop proxy does not > > need to potentially do other things itself. > > that does make sense, but then the ua needs to let the proxy know, > exactly which keepalive method(s) it supports and the proxy should be > able to respond, which one it wants to receive if there is more than one > that the us is advertising. I think Christer's current proposal is to re-use exactly what outbound does, which I thought was basically one and only one mechanism per transport type, of message-based/UDP=STUN, stream-based=CRLFCRLF. If so, then there is no choice to make. (which is good, imo) -hadriel _______________________________________________ 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
