On 12/21/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > In practice, I can imagine two implementation scenarios: > > - The UAS for the original address (or a proxy acting on its behalf) > decides that the call should be forwarded. It sends a 181 response > (with a new to-tag), and then (acting like a proxy) forwards a copy > of the INVITE to the forwarding destination. >
Can we follow this scenario a little further? Here's what I'm getting out of all this. Please correct me if I've misunderstood something along the way. Once the proxy forwards the INVITE to the forwarding destination, the UAS will allocate its own to-tag for the responses. So, now the UAC may have two early dialogs: dialog D1 with the to-tag that the proxy generated when it sent the 181 response; and dialog D2 with the to-tag from the UAS. The UAC never gets a final response for dialog D1, so the INVITE transaction eventually times out. Does that sound about right? Or did I go off the deep-end somewhere? -- Gary Cote www.awardsolutions.com _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
