On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 4:12 PM, Scott Lawrence<[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, 2009-06-15 at 15:52 -0400, M. Ranganathan wrote: >> >> Another question I have in my mind is : >> >> If you have two systems behind NATs each with a domain name >> sixp.example.local ( perfectly legal ) and you want to federate them >> in the manner you are describing but without a B2BUA, will one system >> not ge confused by the From header of the other? > > That one answers itself - the '.local' domain is _local_. It's never > going to work to expect that to work _anywhere_ with _anything_ outside > it's scope.
The question should be rephrased. If I send a request from one proxy to another both of them behind NATs and both and they BOTH have the same sipx proxy domain name AND there is no request re-writing then does the second domain proxy server get confused by the From header that it sees from the first proxy server? If not, how do we deal with this. Does the federation scheme that we currently have work under such circumstances? Note: It is possible (likely) that the answer is yes but I'd like to understand how this is handled ( pointer to the document or thread would be appreciated if the document talks about it). If not then I assume we are mandating that the domains of each of the sipx proxy servers being federated is distinct from the other even though they are private. Note : This is not a major limitation -- I am just trying to understand things a bit better. Thanks Regards, 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 sipXecs IP PBX -- http://www.sipfoundry.org/
