On Jul 14, 2008, at 2:30 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
So far, though, it's mostly just been complaints about why anyone
would need anything other than 4474. Now if we could only have
gotten such a real-world deployment experience requirement before
moving 4474 to PS...
Indeed.
There are implementations of 4474 around and were long before it
became and RFC but ignoring that ...
I asked some folks on this thread a few years ago for an example of a
real deployment where it would not be possible to use 4474 as long as
the SBC implemented 4474. I'm still waiting for an example of where it
actually is broken. Hadriel hypothesized a type of situation where it
could be broken. That was the case where service provider A passed
call to B who passed call C and they were not using E.164 numbers but
were using email style addresses and the one in the middle wanted to
do media steering or restrict what codecs where allowed.
Cullen <with my individual contributor hat on>
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list https://www.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
