Scott Lawrence wrote: > > I realize sipXecs is not obligated to set transport in RR, but at > > least in the case of remote worker, who registered via TCP, > in may be > > the logical thing to do. We already send out-of-dialog > requests toward > > the remote worker using the transport protocol taken from > registration > > record. Why not modify the RR based on the registration. > > > > Even though one can argue that the phone configured to use TCP > > protocol should stick to TCP even when facing the freedom on using > > either UDP or TCP, there is no harm in forcing the > transport to TCP in > > the case of a remote worker registered via TCP. > > I think that this latter issue is a special case of XX-5896, > which tracks the need to add a separate Record-Route to > support NAT traversal. > Having that one specify the transport explicitly is probably > a good idea. Do you see any subtlety here that wouldn't catch?
Hi Scott, It might be confusing to tie this fix with XX-5896, which has a different focus and transport requirement can be lost as an unrelated detail. I would view XX-4786 and XX-5896 as larger scope, less predictable and having less urgency. A solution for the transport problem is a simple one, is low risk and can be implemented quickly, perhaps even in 4.0. There is also some urgency in getting this issue addressed. Thanks, Mark. _______________________________________________ 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/
