RE: [Geopriv] Why these OBO Discussions?

From: Winterbottom, James ^lt;James.Winterbottom@andrew.com>
Date: Tue Nov 27 2007 - 21:11:02 EST

But you agree that in the 95% case, where the SIP proxy knows that IP address belongs to its ISP pool that it will work just fine? > -----Original Message----- > From: Brian Rosen [mailto:br@brianrosen.net] > Sent: Wednesday, 28 November 2007 12:11 PM > To: 'Hannes Tschofenig' > Cc: 'GEOPRIV'; 'Marc Linsner' > Subject: RE: [Geopriv] Why these OBO Discussions? > > It definitely won't work in a DSL environment unless the proxy bans > nomading. > > I could work in an enterprise, but the deployment considerations are worse > than the HELD issues. Instead of just worrying about VPNs and NATs between > the access network and the LIS, it has to worry about them between the > access network and the proxy, which could be much more difficult. > > OBO is a terrible idea made necessary for conversion. I'd like it to be > possible, so we don't need an upgrade of endpoints before we can do > anything. It fails badly (bad location instead of no location), just like > HELD. We should say NOT RECOMMENDED and then talk about upgrades issues. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Hannes Tschofenig [mailto:Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net] > > Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 6:43 PM > > To: Brian Rosen > > Cc: 'Marc Linsner'; 'GEOPRIV' > > Subject: Re: [Geopriv] Why these OBO Discussions? > > > > What about an enterprise and DSL environment? > > > > Brian Rosen wrote: > > > Yes of course. And I'm sure it works very well in a lab, and in a > > mobile > > > IMS environment (although they don't plan to use it in mobile IMS, > they > > plan > > > to use SLP and MLP). > > > > > > Brian > > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: Hannes Tschofenig [mailto:Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net] > > >> Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 6:07 PM > > >> To: Brian Rosen > > >> Cc: 'Marc Linsner'; 'GEOPRIV' > > >> Subject: Re: [Geopriv] Why these OBO Discussions? > > >> > > >> This is essentially what the HELD Identity Extension does. > > >> > > >> Brian Rosen wrote: > > >> > > >>> Why send the IP address of the client to the right LIS of course! > > >>> Works fine in the lab. > > >>> > > >>> Also works in a mobile IMS system. > > >>> > > >>> Brian > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> -----Original Message----- > > >>>> From: Marc Linsner [mailto:mlinsner@cisco.com] > > >>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 5:57 PM > > >>>> To: 'Hannes Tschofenig'; 'GEOPRIV' > > >>>> Subject: RE: [Geopriv] Why these OBO Discussions? > > >>>> > > >>>> Hannes, > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> Is it possible to stop rehashing past decisions? > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>> When was it decided how the proxy was going to discover the > location > > >>>> > > >> OBO > > >> > > >>>> the > > >>>> client? What mechanism was choosen? > > >>>> > > >>>> -Marc- > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> _______________________________________________ > > >>>> Geopriv mailing list > > >>>> Geopriv@ietf.org > > >>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv > > >>>> > > >>>> > > > > _______________________________________________ > Geopriv mailing list > Geopriv@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original. Any unauthorized use of this email is prohibited. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ [mf2]

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
Received on Tue, 27 Nov 2007 20:11:02 -0600

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Nov 27 2007 - 21:11:13 EST