thats the expected behavior. why do u need RFC to define that behavior. Regards Ranjit
On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 9:04 AM Amanpreet Singh <amanpreeet.si...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello All, > > I'm looking to see if there is any RFC defining the standard around route > advance/ re-routing of calls to the next available route based on the SIP > failure response. > > Looked into SIP Peering RFC6271 and RFC5486, however it doesn't cover the > route advance requirements. > > To be specific, we have SIP trunks with a provider, when a call fails on > the first trunk with SIP 50X UAC is doing route advance to the next trunk > with that provider as per priority. UAC is generating a new call-id in the > INVITE for call to the second trunk; however the peer expects the INVITE > with the same call-id. > > Seeking your help for RFC to refer to conclude this, thanks in advance. > > > Thanks, > Amanpreet Singh. > _______________________________________________ > Sip-implementors mailing list > Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu > https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors > _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
