Hi,
Thank you for your answer.
Perhaps I should emphasize that I am always talking about Edge Proxy
behavior handling incoming Responses to be forwarded to a UAC over an
existing flow.
It seems that your answer is related to handling Responses in the
UAC, not in the Edge Proxy. Nevertheless I add my comments below:
Outbound expects that rport is used in the via header for routing of
responses (for UDP that is) see the note in section 4.3.
I understand that section 4.3 is for UA behavior.
Responses are
routed as defined in 3261 for TCP.
Yes, but in the case of forwarding Responses to a flow in an Edge
Proxy, I understand that the proxy uses the flowtoken information,
thus discarding any consideration of the Via-header parameters
(different to 3261 approach).
So.. shouldn't outbound-08 draft explain the case of Responses
handled by the Edge Proxy? By common sense I guess that the Response
should use the destination stated in the flowtoken, but, as
outbound-08 did not formally specify this case, why I could not avoid
considering the destination in the Via-header (although it wont work
with NAT)?
Regards,
Sergio
Quoting Kevin Johns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Sergio,
Outbound expects that rport is used in the via header for routing of
responses (for UDP that is) see the note in section 4.3. Responses are
routed as defined in 3261 for TCP.
Kevin
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 8:52 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: Cullen Jennings; Rohan Mahy
Subject: [Sip] outbound08 - Handling Responses in Edge proxy / Via
vs.Flowtoken
Hi,
I have a question related to handling Responses that are going to be
sent over a flow in an Edge proxy.
In "5.3. Forwarding Requests (outbound08)" I read that a Request is
forwarded to a flow using the information retrieved from the flow token
(and that it is found in the Route-header).
Now I am considering how is the case for Responses.
Should we consider the same behavior? i.e. forward a Response over a
flow using the flowtoken found in the Path-header?
In 'non-outbound SIP', as far as I understand, Route Header forces the
routing in Requests, and Via-header forces routing in Responses.
So... should we avoid any consideration to the information stored in
the topmost Via-header when proxying a Response? (And instead use the
information in the flowtoken ?)
I think that the answers is yes, since the Via could contain a private
address in the case of a NAT in the middle. Then, shouldn't be mentioned
the response case in the draft?
Regards,
Sergio
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use
[EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip Use
[EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip
Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip
