Re: Question on draft-ietf-sip-outbound-20 draft: multipleflowcreation

"Scott Lawrence" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.ietf.sip,gmane.ietf.sip-implementors
Organization Nortel Networks
Message-ID <1251737751.19992.132.camel@scott>
On Mon, 2009-08-31 at 12:31 -0400, Scott Lawrence wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-08-31 at 22:33 +0800, Vavilapalli Srikanth-A19563 wrote:
> > True, UDP flow may not be required if TCP flow has been setup to route
> > incoming traffic towards UA. But Won't it be an additional bonus if UA
> > creates a UDP FLOW in addition to TCP FLOW, so that network can still
> > reach the UA over the other transport FLOW when one FLOW is down
> > (Unless if both FLOWs got created with same host and all the FLOWs
> > connected to that host is down)? 
> >  
> > Also assume a UA has some local policy to prefer UDP transport over
> > TCP to transmit the outgoing SIP messages of size less than MTU. In
> > such scenarios, UA might want to establish both UDP and TCP FLOWs with
> > the same edge proxy and keep alive both the connections and use the
> > corresponding FLOW based on DNS lookup preferences and User's local
> > policy preferences to transport outgoing messages.
> 
> That would not be a very sensible proxy if the phone is behind a NAT and
> supports TCP.  

s/proxy/policy/



_______________________________________________
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
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.