On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 10:18 AM, Worley, Dale R (Dale)
wrote:
> Strictly speaking, if the original connection is closed, RFC 3261 says
> that the response should be sent by resolving the host:port in the
> sent-by value using RFC 3263. This would be useful in
> high-availability situations (wher
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 4:50 AM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
> 2012/6/15 Roman Shpount :
> However I do a "trick". If my proxy receives a request retransmission
> from a different IP:port, it updates its server transaction
> information so responses are now sent to the new IP:port of the UAC.
>
> S
> From: Roman Shpount [ro...@telurix.com]
>
> On the related note, has anybody figured out how the response is supposed
> to be sent to a SIP message if the original TCP connection disconnects?
> Should we be putting some sort of flow tokens in the VIA header? The
> current specification says that
2012/6/15 José Luis Millán :
> RFC 5627 states (at least that is what I understand) that for
> mid-dialog requests in the authoritative proxy, the Path headers in
> the contact binding must be discarded:
>
> 6.1
> +++
> Special considerations apply to the processing of any Path headers
> stored i
2012/6/15 Roman Shpount :
> On the related note, has anybody figured out how the response is supposed to
> be sent to a SIP message if the original TCP connection disconnects? Should
> we be putting some sort of flow tokens in the VIA header? The current
> specification says that response should be
Hi,
RFC 5627 states (at least that is what I understand) that for
mid-dialog requests in the authoritative proxy, the Path headers in
the contact binding must be discarded:
6.1
+++
Special considerations apply to the processing of any Path headers
stored in the registration (see RFC 3327 [3]).
