inline ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jonathan Rosenberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> inline. > > Bob Penfield wrote: > > inline > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Paul Kyzivat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > <snip> > >>If the client is treating the server as an outbound proxy, by using a > >>preloaded Route header, why would it decide not to use the same > >>preloaded route header when sending to the redirected address? > >> > > > > > > You could certainly do that, but I if that server is just a redirect server > > and not a proxy, there is no need to send the subsequent request back thru > > the server. > > The UAC may not know that, though. Indeed, the spec does say that the > Route headers would be present in the recursed request. From 8.1.3.4: > > > In all other respects, requests sent upon receipt of a redirect > > response SHOULD re-use the header fields and bodies of the original > > request. > > Local outbound redirect servers, IMHO, are a bad idea, because they can > cause a ping-ponging effect. > This does not seem right to me. The UAC has decided by some local policy to contact a given next-hop server and sends it a request. That server says, I can't do it, but so-and-so can by sending a redirect response. Why would the UAC then send the request back to the same server that just told it to go somewhere else? With the above rule, how would you ever not send it back to the redirect server? My understanding of 3261 is that unless you are sending the request to host indicated in the Request-URI, you put a Route header in. _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
