Volkan Hatem <vol...@hatem.net> writes: > Indeed, INVITE-with-Replaces was the first alternative I could think of as > well.
> Of course, there are other issues to tackle as well such as > - NAT traversal, whether ICE or a simpler (always insert a proxy when NAT > detected) mechanisms can be preferred. > - The time it takes to get an IP connectivity, resolve proxy addresses > might complicate it if it takes too long Yes, there is definitely going to be some delay apparent to the user, unless the UA can get warning and use a make-before-break technique. Other than delay, an INVITE-with-Replaces can use the same techniques the original INVITE used for dealing with NATs, etc. > - Whether it conflicts with other operations requiring re-INVITEs as well > (updating session description to add/remove/modify media) One necessity is that an INVITE-with-Replaces needs to be processed with the same sort of glare logic that a re-INVITE does. Otherwise, if both endpoints attempt INVITE-with-Replaces simultaneously, the call is likely to fail. Similar considerations probably apply to UPDATE. Dale _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
