On Wed, 2008-11-12 at 09:44 -0500, M. Ranganathan wrote: > On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 3:10 PM, Scott Lawrence > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> Are we better off simulating RINGING using our park server for a > >> uniform user experience or should we forward REFER to the iTSP for > >> In-DIALOG refers received from the PBX? > > > > I don't think we should simulate ringing - there are many worms in that > > can... > > > >> If so, we also need to be able > >> to handle inbound REFER from the ITSP (which adds more complexity to > >> the code). > > > > Why would we need to handle inbound REFER? Have you seen one? > > I am thinking about PBX to PBX connection via an ITSP If we're going to support PBX-to-PBX we don't _need_ the ITSP, and we should not send the call to them in the first place.
Let's keep our conceptual model clean here: an ITSP is a Gateway to the PSTN - it is NOT some kind of intermediary between us and any other SIP-capable system. If by chance we don't know the SIP address and send to the ITSP, and it sends the call with SIP directly to the target without actually going through the PSTN, that's fine, but to us it's all the same. > In that case, I > suppose, if I strip the Allow:REFER from the outbound INVITE from > sipxbridge, the ITSP cannot send an inbound REFER legally. Why would you ever strip anything from an Allow header? Send what you support, don't send what you don't support. _______________________________________________ sipx-dev mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev
