The Call Flow#1 would be better & needed for the scenarios in which
SIP UA is configured to receive all its responses through some Inbound
proxy server which may provide some security/administrative functions
for the SIP UA. In this scenario SIP UA can put the address of Inbound
proxy in the maddr parameter.

Regards,
Pravesh

On 5/31/07, Yong Xin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks, based on section 18.2.2 of RFC 3261, the INVITE transaction will be
> completed like this:
>
> 1) If Via with "maddr"
>
> send-by                        MS                   maddr
>     |                           |                     |
>     |----------INVITE --------->|                     |
>     |                           |--------100 -------->|
>     |<------------------- 100 ------------------------|
>     |                           |--------200 -------->|
>     |<------------------- 200 ------------------------|
>     |----------ACK ------------>|                     |
>
> 2) If Via without "maddr"
>
> send-by                           MS
>     |                           |
>     |----------INVITE --------->|
>     |<--------- 100 ----------->|
>     |<--------- 200 ------------|
>     |----------ACK ------------>|
>
> I'm wondering if there's an use case scenario that call flow #1 is needed
> and better than call flow #2.
>
> Thanks,
> Yong
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sanjay Sinha (sanjsinh) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2007 2:26 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [Sip-implementors] Via header "maddr" parameter question
>
> Pl. see section 18.2.2 of RFC 3261 about how to send response if there is
> maddr param in Via
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Yong Xin
> >Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2007 3:43 PM
> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Subject: [Sip-implementors] Via header "maddr" parameter question
> >
> >Hi,
> >
> >I'm implementing a Media Server, which is functioning as a SIP UA and
> >do nothing about proxy or registration. The implementation is compliant
> >to RFC 3261.
> >
> >Here is an INVITE request received by MS. The request is received from
> >source address "10.10.0.1":
> >
> >       INVITE sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED];play=5;repeat=2 SIP/2.0
> >       Via:SIP/2.0/UDP
> >10.10.0.1:5455;maddr=10.10.0.2;branch=z9hG4bK+222
> >
> >As you can see, the Via header also contains "maddr" parameter with a
> >different address "10.10.0.2".
> >
> >1) Which address should be used to send response, "10.10.0.1"
> >or "10.10.0.2"?
> >
> >2) As per RFC 3261 section 18.2.2, address "10.10.0.2" (maddr) should
> >be used, but I'm not sure if this rule is applicable for the MS, as the
> >MS is a pure SIP UA and does not support multicast.
> >
> >3) Also, if response is not sent back to source address, what happen to
> >the client transaction on the UAC side? Timed-out?
> >
> >Your comments are appreciated.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Yong
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Sip-implementors mailing list
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sip-implementors mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
>
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors

Reply via email to