On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 2:03 PM, Scott Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mon, 2008-09-22 at 13:00 -0400, M. Ranganathan wrote: >> Maybe we are rushing a bit on filing issue so perhaps we should >> discuss this a bit. >> >> Would there be any problem with the following scheme: >> >> 1. sipxbridge keeps count of number of calls for a given itsp account. >> >> 2. When that limit is reached, if a new call bound for that provider >> is seen by sipxbridge, then sipbridge cycles ( round robin ) to the >> next account of that provider. In doing so, of course, it has to >> re-write From header. But thats OK because it is a back to back ua. > > If we can't rely on the ITSP to reject the call correctly in this case > (which will surprise no one), then why not just have sipXbridge track as > you describe and then return a proper 5xx code when the limit is > reached? The proxy then does exactly the right thing already and no > other functionality is needed anywhere. > >> 3. If sipxbridge has cycled through all the accounts of a given >> provider, it can return error code. >> >> Note that in this case, the call is not even placed if the limit is >> reached ( we do not rely upon consistent error code being returned). >> >> Would the scheme above do the trick for what we want to achieve >> without relying upon ITSP behavior? > > Excellent! We already have support for call limit on a per-ITSP basis for sipxbridge. Then all that needs to be done is to ensure that this feature works and we are done.
I guess no issue will be needed in that case. Ranga -- M. Ranganathan _______________________________________________ sipx-dev mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev
