Hi,
>>I don't agree. In my opinion the important thing is the number of
registartions for the instance-id. Whether
>>different contacts are used > or not is irrelevant.
>
>i don't know what instance-id is and i don't even care to know at this
point.
"instance-id: This specification uses the word instance-id to refer
to the value of the "sip.instance" media feature tag in the
Contact header field. This is a Uniform Resource Name (URN) that
uniquely identifies this specific UA instance."
While each registration flow gets an own reg-id, all registrations flows
from the UA shares the same instance-id.
>the only thing that matters to me as a user is that if UA is
>connected to IP networks and thus has two contacts, it must
>register both of them via both of its two outbound proxies
>(either in a single register request listing both contacts or
>in two separate register requests listing one each).
>
>this guarantees that if the two outbound proxies are
>implemented as independent proxy/registrar pairs, inbound
>call to the UA via either proxy is able to fork the call to
>both contacts.
They are still logically two separate functions, and I believe it has
been said that registrar redundancy is not within the scope.
Having said that, I don't think anything forbids you from doing what you
want.
But, in scenarios where the outbound- and registrar proxies are NOT
co-located, and only one registrar is used, I see no reason why people
shall be forced to register both contacts to both outbound proxies. In
cases where the contact is access network dependent it may not even be
possible to do so.
Regards,
Christer
_______________________________________________
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
