RFC or 3GPP standard but not
yet able to find any.
Your expert inputs are much appreciated and if it can be provided in
some reference to standard it will be very helpful.
--
Thanks,
Varun Bhatia
___
Sip-implementors mailing list
Sip-implemen
mentors mailing list
> Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
--
Regards,
Varun Bhatia
___
Sip-implementors mailing list
Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
Regards,
Varun Bhatia
___
Sip-implementors mailing list
Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
Hi Kchitiz,
As per my understanding this will be implementation dependent there is no
specific standards, if client fqdn is resolving in two ip then it must be
trying to load balance. In A query response both Ip should have been received
therefore both of them should be compared with layer 3 ip
Thanks Ankur, not sure if it is implemented in such manner then we should not
honor new connection with INVITE?
Thanks,
Varun Bhatia
> On 29-Apr-2014, at 21:05, ankur bansal wrote:
>
> Hi Varun ,
> I dont think sip protocol will have any issue with this .Means you can use
> on
-implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu [mailto:sip-
> > implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of VARUN BHATIA
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2014 6:52 AM
> > To: sip-implementors
> > Subject: [Sip-implementors] TCP/NAT handling in SIP
> >
> > Hi
handling between REGISTER
request and INVITE request ?
Any inputs are appreciated.
--
Regards,
Varun Bhatia
___
Sip-implementors mailing list
Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
t;with a BYE request, using the dialog identifier retrieved from the
>
>2xx final response.
>
>
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Vivek Batra
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* VARUN BHATIA [mailto:varuninbha...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, April 11, 20
equest as described in Section 15."
>
> Best Regards,
> Vivek Batra
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: sip-implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu
> [mailto:sip-implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of VARUN
> BHATIA
> Sent: Friday, April
each represents a distinct
dialog, with a distinct dialog identifier.
The UAC core MUST generate an ACK request for each 2xx received from
the transaction layer.
Any inputs are really appreciable.
Thanks,
Varun Bhatia
___
Sip-implementors mailing
0 RTP/AVP 34
>
> port = 0, changing the RTP codec to a known static one (H263).
>
>
> Regards.
>
> ___
> Sip-implementors mailing list
> Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-im
Hi,
I have received:
a=path:msrp://10.166.46.226:7664/CR003+1382409119.486157738;tcp
My stack is rejecting it, not sure about the precise grammar for it, seems
that this may be due to + sign received in it.
Any inputs are appreciable.
Thanks,
Varun
--
Regards,
Varun Bhatia
Hi,
I have received:
a=path:msrp://10.166.46.226:7664/CR003+1382409119.486157738;tcp
My stack is rejecting it, not sure about the precise grammar for it, seems
that this may be due to + sign received in it.
Any inputs are appreciable.
Thanks,
Varun
_
13 matches
Mail list logo
