Klaus Darilion wrote:
I think a "signaling-only" B2BUA can not handle solution 1 correctly.,
thus solution 2.
If the B2BUA also handles media, then IMO solution 1 would be the
preferred way as to hide the forking from the UAC.
I already have some code that could be useful for solution 2. It has
been originally made to support complex PBX-like scenarios.
So I will try to dig that out and test with Inaki's scenario.
Cheers
Raphael.
regards
klaus
Raphael Coeffic schrieb:
Hi Folks!
It looks like a lot of people are interrested in this issue. But I
would be like to point at the possible solutions, rather than
argueing about what RFCs do or do not express.
IMO, the real question is: what do we want for SEMS. There are two
type of solutions.
The first solution is some kind of a hack, which requires to read the
specs very carefully, and find a way to safely "select" one (early)
session, and disregard the others.
The second solution consists of creating/simulating an additional UAS
(w/ new To-tag) on the caller side for each different To-tag seen on
the callee side.
I do not think that we can always use the second solution.
-Raphael.
_______________________________________________
Semsdev mailing list
Semsdev@lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/semsdev
_______________________________________________
Semsdev mailing list
Semsdev@lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/semsdev
