On Mon, 2008-09-22 at 13:00 -0400, M. Ranganathan wrote: > Maybe we are rushing a bit on filing issue so perhaps we should > discuss this a bit. > > Would there be any problem with the following scheme: > > 1. sipxbridge keeps count of number of calls for a given itsp account. > > 2. When that limit is reached, if a new call bound for that provider > is seen by sipxbridge, then sipbridge cycles ( round robin ) to the > next account of that provider. In doing so, of course, it has to > re-write From header. But thats OK because it is a back to back ua.
If we can't rely on the ITSP to reject the call correctly in this case (which will surprise no one), then why not just have sipXbridge track as you describe and then return a proper 5xx code when the limit is reached? The proxy then does exactly the right thing already and no other functionality is needed anywhere. > 3. If sipxbridge has cycled through all the accounts of a given > provider, it can return error code. > > Note that in this case, the call is not even placed if the limit is > reached ( we do not rely upon consistent error code being returned). > > Would the scheme above do the trick for what we want to achieve > without relying upon ITSP behavior? _______________________________________________ sipx-dev mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev
