Christer Holmberg wrote:
Hi,
I think I am missing something here. I presume that the knowledge of
the UA is limited to:
- to proxy addresses
- an AOR to register
Presumably the address of the registrar is derived from the AOR to
register by removing the user part. So the UA, when
registering, doesn't specify two different registrars. Whether there
are two or not is a function of how the proxy routes
the register request. So whether the two registers for the same contact
go to one registrar or two is unknown to the UA.
In some configurations this would give you redundancy, and in others it
would not.
Then, what causes the UA to register two different contacts? Are the
wlan contact and the 3g contact registered to
*different* AORs? If not I don't see the point. If anything, I would
expect that 3g and wlan represent access networks
and hence differing proxies, not AORs or registrars.
In the 3GPP case different contacts can be registered for the *SAME*
AOR.
Not just in 3gpp. That should be true most anywhere. Typically they
represent different UAs.
The question is: why would a *single* UA establish two distinct contacts
and register them for the same AOR?
And, as you say, the edge proxies may be "access network dependent", so
it may not even be possible to e.g. register the wlan contact via the 3g
edge proxy, etc.
So you are saying that the contact addresses are themselves access
network dependent??? So that the ip address of the contact is only
accessible via a particular access network and proxy?
This *really* isn't the internet, is it!!!
Paul
Regards,
Christer
Thanks,
Paul
Christer Holmberg wrote:
Hi,
> So, you want to register both contacts to both registars, right?
>
> Example:
>
> UA_Contact_wlan ----- OB_1 ----- REG_1 > UA_Contact_wlan -----
OB_1 ----- REG_2
> UA_Contact_3g ----- OB_2 ----- REG_1
> UA_Contact_3g ----- OB_2 ----- REG_2
no, like this:
> UA_Contact_wlan ----- OB_1 ----- REG_1 > UA_Contact_wlan -----
OB_2 ----- REG_2
> UA_Contact_3g ----- OB_1 ----- REG_1
> UA_Contact_3g ----- OB_2 ----- REG_2
Now, in your example, if OB_1 and REG_2 fail you don't still don't
have redundancy :)
if outbound does not mandate that UA must register each contact with
both ob proxies, my pleasant surprise was a too
early one and ob draft falls back to the useless bin.
I don't have the spec in front of me, but I don't think it currently
talks about multiple contacts.
I guess this all comes back to Dean's question whether we need some
new text into the draft.
In order to avoid delaying the Outbound spec even more, I guess it
could also be an extension draft:"Outbound with multiple contacts", or
something like that...
Regards,
Christer
-- juha
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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
