On Mon, 2008-09-22 at 14:39 -0400, Gertsvolf, Mark (CAR:9D30) wrote:
> Scott Lawrence wrote:
> > 
> > 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.
> 
> This is still not enough as sipXbridge does not have the intelligence to
> choose the proper gateway (ITSP SIP account). When a call is routed to
> sipXbridge it looks at R-URI to determine which ITSP to use and also at
> CallerId to determine which ITSP SIP account to use.
> If sipXbridge does internal call counting and rejects the call with
> proper error code, the call comes back via dialplan fallback, but it
> looks no different then the original call and there is no history
> maintained to say that this is a fallback to the next gateway (ITSP SIP
> account).

Not necessarily - the proxy caller-id rewriting is tied to the gateway,
so each gateway can have a different caller-id for the same user.  (I
don't know if the UI exposes this capability, but it's there in the
proxy)


_______________________________________________
sipx-dev mailing list
[email protected]
List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev
Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev

Reply via email to