Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
"Dwight, Timothy M (Tim)" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.sip |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Dean, Hadriel has answered most of your questions. On this point: > > Alternatively, if the SP's infrastructure is in the public address > > space, you typically don't see NAT / SIP ALG or topology hiding or media > > steering. You may (often do) still see "border devices" doing things > > like traffic aggregation and policy based routing. > > > > Do we need SDP editing to allow these functions, or is there > a cleaner way to do it? Sorry I wasn't more clear. These functions don't involve SDP editing. Traffic aggregation (by which I mean to refer to aggregation of SIP signaling traffic) is usually done with ROUTE headers or use of the 'maddr' URI parameter, or (most often) through re-targetting in the border device. Policy routing is some mechanism internal to the border device, that it uses to determine how to modify and to where to forward, the SIP message. tim _______________________________________________ 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