Hi Paul >>>Please explain more about what you are asserting for TLS. It looks wrong to me, but I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to say.
I was trying to point to RFC 5923 which provides provision to reuse same TLS connection not only for sending Requests from Caller(A) but also for requests being generated by Callee(B) towards Caller(A). @Xaled, Apart for reasons discussed above why reuse of TCP connection not recommended. I think we can have another scenarios ,where its better to open new TCP connection.See if this makes sense here : > In-dialog request(say ACK) can directly reach out to end point based on contact address recieved in last response(say 200Ok) OR >Following Record route ,where path(or for our interest next node where socket to establish) is not same for in-dialog from what it was for initial request. Also one more point regarding Domain resolution using SRV records : When domain gets resolved to P2 while sending in-dialog request ,that should be assumed mainly due to P1 not responding rather than assuming DNS load balancing at transaction level. OR As Paul mentioned if this is done for DNS load balancing then better to close last TCP connection while opening new. Regards Ankur Bansal On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 4:29 PM, xaled <xa...@web.de> wrote: > Hi, > > >As far as I know, the main complaint is that it can temporarily > prevent/delay honoring > >the DNS configured load balancing and priorities. > > So there is a consensus that transaction based DNS load balancing is more > preferable to the dialog based TCP connection reuse? > Meaning that is preferred to have initial INVITE over proxy1, call hold > reINVITE over proxy2 and BYE over proxy 3 having three TCP connections for > one dialog. > > >If the administrator really wants to move the traffic to a different > >server he can always close existing connections. > > Exactly, DNS balancing for TCP connections over dialogs makes perfect > sense. DNS balancing on transaction level make less sense as long as the > initial TCP connection is available. > > If I understood the replies correctly the current state of recommendation > is that there is no requirement to reuse TCP connection inside a dialog. > > Thanks, > xaled > > _______________________________________________ > Sip-implementors mailing list > Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu > https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors > _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
