Re: Dual registration without Outbound

I agree.

	Paul

Dean Willis wrote:
> 
> On Oct 16, 2008, at 8:30 AM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
>>
>> Making this behavior "possible but not default" means that there must 
>> be two options: "do it", and "don't do it". The choice of which to do 
>> would need to be encoded somewhere. This matters a lot to the UA, so I 
>> think this option would have to be encoded as part of the registration 
>> request. Thus outbound would have to change to accommodate it.
> 
> 
> If you want outbound's redundant-flow functionality, which is dependent 
> on requests NOT forking to each flow to a UA, use outbound as specified.
> 
> If instead you want your two contacts treated as two different instances 
> so that requests will fork to them, use two different instance-id 
> values. Essentially, you're using single-contact/single flow Outbound 
> (i.e., keepalive and reverse-routing of requests without redundant-flow) 
> simultaneously on two different contacts (which may well be two 
> different interfaces).
> 
> If you want both outbound's features simultaneously on multiple 
> instances (or use virtual interfaces by having multiple instances on the 
> same interface), then apply outbound as specified on each instance, 
> where there are at least two proxies configured for each instance.
> 
> About the only thing I can see needing to document somewhere is the 
> concept of using multiple instance-ids to make virtual interfaces, and 
> that's pretty simple.
> 
> -- 
> 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