Non-INVITE Transaction Issues Robert Sparks dynamicsoft.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Re-INVITE Handling draft-camarillo-sipping-reinvite-00.txt
Advertisements

SIP(Session Initiation Protocol) - SIP Messages
The new bis Jonathan Rosenberg dynamicsoft. Why rewrite the specification? IESG said so RFC2543 was never the model of clarity to begin with Bis got worse.
Open Issues in bis 12/6/2001 5:28 PM Jonathan Rosenberg dynamicsoft.
IETF 71 SIPPING WG meeting draft-ietf-sipping-pai-update-00.
Non-200 response to PRACK (Due to rejected SDP offer or other reasons) Christer Holmberg
Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 Mangesh Kaushikkar. Overview Introduction Terminology Protocol Overview Message Formats Conceptual Model of a Host.
Computer Networks Transport Layer. Topics F Introduction (6.1)  F Connection Issues ( ) F TCP (6.4)
CS 603 Handling Failure in Commit February 20, 2002.
Both RTS and CTS contains: The address of the sender The address of the receiver The sizeof the intended data short message size contention concentrated.
Max-Breadth Limiting Amplification Attack Damage Controlling the Impact of a Request on the Network draft-sparks-sipping-max-breadth-00 Robert Sparks Estacado.
RSVP Cryptographic Authentication "...RSVP requires the ability to protect its messages against corruption and spoofing. This document defines a mechanism.
SIP Testing Methodology Elie Cohen ProLab PM 17/01/2003.
“There’s a Hole in My Sidewalk”
1 ICS 214B: Transaction Processing and Distributed Data Management Lecture 12: Three-Phase Commits (3PC) Professor Chen Li.
1 Internet Networking Spring 2006 Tutorial 8 DNS and DHCP as UDP applications.
Internet Networking Spring 2002 Tutorial 11 T/TCP (TCP extension for Transactions)
Improving TCP Performance over Ad-hoc Network 11/28/2000 Xuanming Dong, Duke Lee, and Jin Wang Course Project for EE228A --- Fall 2000 (Professor Jean.
1 ICS 214B: Transaction Processing and Distributed Data Management Distributed Database Systems.
Introduction to SIP Speaker: Min-Hua Yang Advisor: Ho-Ting Wu Date:2005/3/29.
CSE 490dp Resource Control Robert Grimm. Problems How to access resources? –Basic usage tracking How to measure resource consumption? –Accounting How.
4 August 2005draft-burger-simple-imdn-011 Instant Message Delivery Notification (IMDN) for Presence and Instant Messaging (CPIM) Messages draft-burger-simple-imdn-01.
Proposed Fix to HERFP* (Heterogeneous Error Response Forking Problem) Rohan Mahy * for INVITE transactions.
Proxy Authentication of the Emergency Status of SIP Calls draft-barnes-ecrit-auth-00 Richard Barnes IETF 69, Chicago, IL, USA.
Early Media in SIP: Problem Statement, Requirements, and Analysis of Solutions draft-barnes-sip-em-ps-req-sol Richard Barnes BBN Technologies IETF 68,
ICMP (Internet Control Message Protocol) Computer Networks By: Saeedeh Zahmatkesh spring.
Chapter 16 – DNS. DNS Domain Name Service This service allows client machines to resolve computer names (domain names) to IP addresses DNS works at the.
Session Initiation Protocol Team Members: Manjiri Ayyar Pallavi Murudkar Sriusha Kottalanka Vamsi Ambati Girish Satya LeeAnn Tam.
Distributed Transactions March 15, Transactions What is a Distributed Transaction?  A transaction that involves more than one server  Network.
1 Kommunikatsiooniteenuste arendus IRT0080 Loeng 4 Avo Ots telekommunikatsiooni õppetool, TTÜ raadio- ja sidetehnika inst.
I-D: draft-rahman-mipshop-mih-transport-01.txt Transport of Media Independent Handover Messages Over IP 67 th IETF Annual Meeting MIPSHOP Working Group.
Presented By Team Netgeeks SIP Session Initiation Protocol.
TURN -01 Changes and Issues Rohan Mahy BEHAVE at IETF66 - Montreal.
SIP:Session Initiation Protocol Che-Yu Kuo Computer & Information Science Department University of Delaware May 11, 2010 CISC 856: TCP/IP and Upper Layer.
Omar A. Abouabdalla Network Research Group (USM) SIP – Functionality and Structure of the Protocol SIP – Functionality and Structure of the Protocol By.
IETF77 Multimob California1 Proposal for Tuning IGMPv3/MLDv2 Protocol Behavior in Wireless and Mobile networks draft-wu-multimob-igmp-mld-tuning-00 Qin.
SIP working group IETF#70 Essential corrections Keith Drage.
CS603 Fault Tolerance - Communication April 17, 2002.
More Distributed Garbage Collection DC4 Reference Listing Distributed Mark and Sweep Tracing in Groups.
Caller Prefs and Friends Jonathan Rosenberg dynamicsoft.
Making SIP NAT Friendly Jonathan Rosenberg dynamicsoft.
SIP WG Open Issues IETF 50 Jonathan Rosenberg dynamicsoft.
5. The Transport Layer 5.1 Role of Transport Layer It bridge the gab between applications and the network layer. Provides reliable cost-effective data.
Open issues from SIP list Jonathan Rosenberg dynamicsoft.
RFC3261 (Almost) Robert Sparks. SIPiT 10 2 Status of the New SIP RFC Passed IETF Last Call In the RFC Editor queue Author’s 48 hours review imminent IMPORTANT:
RADIUS UDP Transport Mapping Avi Lior Bridgewater Systems
TCP continued. Discussion – TCP Throughput TCP will most likely generate the saw tooth type of traffic. – A rough estimate is that the congestion window.
1 RFC4028 Session Timer in the Session Initiation Protocol Speaker : Ying Shun Lin Adviser : Quincy Wu.
SIP Events: Changes and Open Issues IETF 50 / SIP Working Group Adam Roach
Indication of Terminated Dialog draft-holmberg-sipping txt Christer Holmberg NomadicLab Ericsson.
4343 X2 – The Transport Layer Tanenbaum Ch.6.
The new bis. 9 th SiPiT 4 Dec 2001 Why rewrite the specification? IESG said so RFC2543 was never the model of clarity to begin with.
SIP Session Timer Jonathan Rosenberg dynamicsoft.
March 20th, 2001 SIP WG meeting 50th IETF SIP WG meeting Overlap signalling handling
SIPWG Slides for IETF 51 Jonathan Rosenberg dynamicsoft.
1 © Process Software Corp. DHCP Failover Protocol Jeff DECUS Europe 2000 Thursday, 13 Apr :00 - 9:45.
UDP : User Datagram Protocol 백 일 우
SIP Congestion Safety Open Issues. Background SIP over UDP uses retransmissions timers within each transaction with exponential backoffs to provide reliability.
CIS 825 Lecture 8. Leader Election Aim is to elect exactly one node as the leader.
SIP wg Items Jonathan Rosenberg dynamicsoft Caller Preferences: Changes Discussion of Redirects –Previous draft only proxy –Nothing different for redirect.
IPv6 Flow Label Specification
RFC 3265 bis: SIP Events Redux
Session Initiation Protocol
Examining Session Policy Topologies
An introduction to Transactions & Dialogs
Alfredo Terzoli / Mosioua Tsietsi
The new bis.
The problem with fragments in 6lo mesh networks
SIP Session Timer Glare Handling
Lecture 10: Directory-Based Examples II
Presentation transcript:

Non-INVITE Transaction Issues Robert Sparks dynamicsoft

The Race Condition 64*T1 UAC UAS Timeout Request Response

The Race Condition UAS believes it responded in time UAC and UAS have different ideas of the result of the transaction UAS has no way to know how much its transaction has been offset from the UAC Each proxy makes the race easier to lose 64*T1 UAC UAS Timeout Request Response RESULT: UAS Non-INVITE transactions must complete immediately!

408 is Not Useful 64*T1 UAC UAS Timeout Request 408 Request Timeout

408 is Not Useful 64*T1 UAC Proxy Request 408 Proxy UAS Request 408

408 is Not Useful 64*T1 UAC Proxy Request 408 Proxy UAS Request

Non-INVITE Timeouts Doom Forking Proxies 64*T1 UAC UAS1 Request 408 Proxy UAS2 415 UAS2’s failure to respond forces both proxies to lose the race 415

Failure to Respond Gets You Blacklisted RFC 3263 discusses moving to next SRV on a no-response timeout (or explicit transport failure) Non-INVITE can’t use next SRV on this request – transaction is already over If failure isn’t cached (address temporarily blacklisted), next request is doomed to the same failure.

Non-INVITE Provisional Responses Arguments for Banning –Wasteful since transaction must complete immediately –(Early) provisionals harm recovery from lost final responses Arguments Against –No response causes blacklisting –Losing the race is the same as not responding at all Should they be banned?

Proposals Proposal A –Make minor changes to use of current Non-INVITE transaction Proposal B –Reform the Non-INVITE transaction to allow it to pend indefinitely

Proposal A 1.Disallow non-100 provisionals 2.Disallow 100 Trying before Timer E reaches T2 3.Encourage 100 Trying if no final response after Timer E reaches T2 4.Disallow 408 to non-INVITE requests 5.Absorb late non-INVITE responses

Proposal A 1.Disallow non-100 provisionals 2.Disallow 100 Trying before Timer E reaches T2 3.Encourage 100 Trying if no final response after Timer E reaches T2 Prevents blacklisting Doesn’t harm lost final response recovery Doesn’t allow reliable provisional responses

Proposal A 4.Disallow 408 to non-INVITE requests Currently they waste network 5.Absorb late non-INVITE responses Don’t statelessly forward after the transaction times out

Proposal B Allow Non-INVITEs to pend (no timer F) Allow CANCEL ACK is not needed Backwards safe

Contrast Proposal A –Removes waste from the network –Improves recovery from a failed node –UAS NI transactions still have to complete immediately or risk losing the race –Does not address proxy doom Proposal B –408s become useful again –Relieves proxies from timeout doom –Still need to address harmful provisionals for UDP Either deprecate UDP or take Proposal A 1-3