> Hi All,
>
> We are developing IMS core network nodes esp. CSCF. I have a query related
> to implementation of RFC 4028 especially w.r.t. 3GPP TS 24.229 and 3GPP TS
> 32.260 procedures.
Which of the P/I/S-CSCFs are B2BUAs? All of them?
---> Currently, in our product line none of them
Hi,
Im looking to find out some information on how service providers have
implemented sipconnect and what Core Service Provider VOIP Platforms support
the SipConnect draft currently.
Im curious if anyone has attempted to work around the implied mechanism for
bulk registration of the DID
Hi,
In RFC5022, the MSCML schema for DTMFKeyType used for ReturnKey and EscapeKey
is defined as below.
As per 5022, the ReturnKey and EscapeKey are optional attributes with default
values of # and *, respectively, as bel
Vikram Chhibber escribió:
> There could be two types of forwarding. Network initiated and UE
> initiated. In the network initiated forwarding, the forwarding number is
> known to the network (User some-how configures this). The network, which
> is ideally a SIP Application server forwards the ca
caio wrote:
> I tested a pstn-gw which is confused when INVITE uri is different from
> TO header. And I stuck here, with this misunderstanding..
That is a seriously broken GW. Tell them to fix it.
Paul
___
Sip-implementors mailing list
Sip-im
El Viernes, 5 de Septiembre de 2008, Paul Kyzivat escribió:
> The diversion draft expired long ago.
> It is widely implemented, but should be considered proprietary.
> It won't ever be standardized by the ietf.
> It has been (loosely) replaced by the History-Info header.
Widely implemented but exp
The use of Diversion was not adopted by the IETF; however many vendors support
it. RFC 4244 is the IETF approved alternative to Diversion.
In addition, I should mention that some vendors use B2BUAs instead proxies to
perform the forwarding services that you mentioned. Thus their call flows
wo
The diversion draft expired long ago.
It is widely implemented, but should be considered proprietary.
It won't ever be standardized by the ietf.
It has been (loosely) replaced by the History-Info header.
Thanks
caio wrote:
> Manoj Priyankara (NOD) escribió:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I also tried to fi
There could be two types of forwarding. Network initiated and UE initiated.
In the network initiated forwarding, the forwarding number is known to the
network (User some-how configures this). The network, which is ideally a SIP
Application server forwards the call depending on the error response or
dushyant wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> We are developing IMS core network nodes esp. CSCF. I have a query related
> to implementation of RFC 4028 especially w.r.t. 3GPP TS 24.229 and 3GPP TS
> 32.260 procedures.
Which of the P/I/S-CSCFs are B2BUAs? All of them?
> 1. As per 3GPP TS 24.229
Manoj Priyankara (NOD) escribió:
> Hi,
>
> I also tried to find information in the call diversion. Ie, when a call
> is forwarded to a SIP UAC, how the INVITE differs from a normal INVITE.
> But I think you can find "Diversion" header in the INVITE message
>
> //
> Manoj
Do you mean Diversion he
Better still, generate '400 Missing Call-ID header field' as encouraged
by RFC3261 section 21.4.1!
Michael
Somesh S. Shanbhag wrote:
> Sudhir:
>
> You are right. 400 Bad Request needs to be generated.
> Refer section 21.4.1 of RFC 3261
>
> Somesh S Shanbhag
> M G L Bangalore
>
>
>
> -Origina
Sudhir:
You are right. 400 Bad Request needs to be generated.
Refer section 21.4.1 of RFC 3261
Somesh S Shanbhag
M G L Bangalore
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Sudhir Kumar Reddy
Sent: Fri 9/5/2008 10:41 AM
To: sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
Subject: [S
Hi All,
We are developing IMS core network nodes esp. CSCF. I have a query related
to implementation of RFC 4028 especially w.r.t. 3GPP TS 24.229 and 3GPP TS
32.260 procedures.
1. As per 3GPP TS 24.229 - When the P-CSCF receives from the
UE an INVITE request, the P-CSCF may r
14 matches
Mail list logo
