Re: Dual registration without Outbound
Dean Willis <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.sip |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Christer Holmberg wrote: > I don't think the spec is broken. I think the spec was written based on > the assumption that a UA instance is not interested in receiving an > INVITE multiple times in parallel (the UA will return 484 for all but > one INVITE) - which I don't think is desired even in normal forking > scenarios - but that it should be possible to, if one flow is down, > choose another flow to reach the UA (read: serial forking). IIRC, it was a deliberate choice (a feature of the spec) that it prevent redundant message delivery, as that would most likely screw up a UA. The whole point of the instance-id is so that the proxy can know that two contacts refer to the same UA, and therefore NOT fork request to both contacts. -- Dean _______________________________________________ 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