[sr-dev] RFC 5626 (Outbound) planned?
Juha Heinanen
jh at tutpro.com
Mon Oct 10 14:31:31 CEST 2011
Olle E. Johansson writes:
> The main difference compared with RFC 3261 is that the burden of
> connection management - UDP, TCP or STCP - is put on the UA.
> The proxy reuse the connection created by the UA for outbound
> requests, but does NOT open new connections.
there is no difference to what my proxy does today. it does not try to
setup tcp connections to ua (set_forward_no_connect()) and udp is a bad
idea anyway.
> The specification also adds the ability, but not the requirement,
> to handle multiple connections (flows) from the same UA to different proxys
> as failover connections. This will indeed make TCP failover faster and
> propably SHOULD be a requirement for TCP/TLS.
yes, but since it is NOT a requirement, you don't get any benefit.
> Previously it was impossible to
> recognize that multiple registrations was from the same UA, so the proxy
> had to fork to all of them and just hope that the UA had some merged fork
> detection.
this is indeed an improvement as i have already mentioned and very easy
to implement in the ua. baresip, for example, does add +sip.instance
param to contact header:
REGISTER sip:test.fi SIP/2.0.
Via: SIP/2.0/TCP 188.67.205.145:35327;branch=z9hG4bKfa4a89e63adaf759;rport.
Contact: <sip:jh at 188.67.205.145:35327;transport=tcp>;expires=600;+sip.instance="<urn:uuid:c79b8de4-6c2f-4d48-a347-d13d9b19d255>".
but does not add Supported: gruu in requests.
so my suggestion is to put priority in adding +sip.instance support to
sr registrar/usrloc implementation.
-- juha
More information about the sr-dev
mailing list