13 jan 2011 kl. 23.36 skrev Paul Kyzivat: > > > On 1/13/2011 10:38 AM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote: >> 2011/1/13 Olle E. Johansson<o...@edvina.net>: >>> - Does your UA add an SDP to a 488 error message? >> >> Most probably no UA in the world adds SDP to a 488 response. > > I don't know, but I suspect you are right, or nearly so. > >> And for sure, no UA in the galaxy would inspect/interpret a SDP in a >> 488 response, at least not within next 20 years. > > Again I presume you are right regarding *current* status. > But if it were to become known that doing so is beneficial to completing > calls successfully, then it doesn't seem at all difficult to do. > > For instance, if this were to be seen as a way to achieve better interop as > IPv6 is deployed, people might be motivated to do it. > It might be easier that using ICE. OTOH, there are other reasons to use ICE, > and it is probably a better solution.
But how would you use ICE in this situation to find out about IPv6 and/or IPv4 capabilities if only one address family was advertised in the SDP? Would it make sense to send an IPv4 only offer and ICE candidates in IPv6 and IPv4? If you send me a SDP with only IPv4 and only IPv4 candidates - then I can't answer with IPv6, I have to deny the call. In this case the deny - 488 - will indicate that I actually have a problem with IPv4 and the NEXT invite may have dual stack offers (multiple media streams) or IPv6 only and then we can use ICE to find out the most efficient media route. /O _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
