Hi, Your answer is in section 6.13 of rfc2543, the paragraph about 3xx and 485 responses describes this behaviour.
James > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > Lei Liang > Sent: 16 October 2001 17:18 > To: sip implementation mail list > Subject: [Sip-implementors] any difference between the tow > requests?see > the example inside. > > > hi, everybody, > I am reading some examples in rfc2543. but i am confused by the > following one: > > ================================================================== > C->F: INVITE sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] SIP/2.0 > From: sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: Alice <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Call-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > CSeq: 1 INVITE > > The local firewall at caller.com happens to be > overloaded and thus > redirects the call from Charlie to a secondary server S: > > F->C: SIP/2.0 302 Moved temporarily > From: sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: Alice <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Call-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > CSeq: 1 INVITE > Contact: > <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:5080;maddr=spare.caller.com> > > Based on this response, Charlie directs the same > invitation to the > secondary server spare.caller.com at port 5080, but maintains the > same Request-URI as before: > > C->S: INVITE sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] SIP/2.0 > From: sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: Alice <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Call-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > CSeq: 2 INVITE > ================================================================ > the second INVITE are exactly the same. the only difference > is C->F and > C->S. does it means anything? I thought the UAC will take the maddr > parameter in the response as the new REQUESE-URI, won't it? > cheers. > lei > _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
