> On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 14:08 -0400, Dale Worley wrote: > > On Tue, 2008-10-28 at 21:33 +0000, Scott Lawrence wrote: > > > Martin take note - Dale is making all our messages significantly > > > smaller ! > > > > Thinking about things further, unfortunately even if we append the > > hostport to the Call-Id, we need to use a 64-bit random > field, because > > we can't depend on the hostport to be unique across the > Internet -- an > > awful lot of sipX's will have address 168.192.1.10, for instance. > > Don't use the address - use the domain name. That will be > much more likely to be unique. Anyone using a domain that > isn't legit in the DNS or one ending in .local won't be able > to do SIP over the Internet anyway, so they only need to > worry about collisions within the domain and (I have it on > good authority that) the smaller number of bits is fine for that.
SipXecs systems in an HA deployment share the same domain name. Would that increase the odds of call-ID collisions between systems. Could the MAC address be used here as a way to improve uniqueness? _______________________________________________ sipx-dev mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev
