Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Paul Kyzivat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
>>>> A way around that is to say that if the URI contains b.com, then an SBC
>>>> acting for b.com, when it knows it won't honor that, can change it to a
>>>> TEL URI when it exits the domain. It then may well go through another
>>>> SBC acting for a.com as it enters the a.com domain. That SBC could
>>>> change the TEL URI to an a.com URI if that will be handled correctly
>>>> within the a.com domain.
>>> Funny enough I've seen a case where that exactly happens. It seemed
>>> crazy to me though.
>> Its not at all crazy.
>
> Sorry, I should have been clearer - it seemed crazy to me because the two
> SBC's were connected with a direct fiber, and all responses upstream from
> b.com were going nowhere but a.com. :)
If the fiber was a trunk connecting two peers then I don't think it is
crazy. It seems preferable to hard coding the peer's policy.
Paul
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip
Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip
