On Thu, 2009-07-16 at 13:44 -0400, Scott Lawrence wrote: > My current thinking is that there are two circumstances for any given > item of route state information: > > A. Position in the route set matters. > > This is clearly the case with the NAT traversal data - > the state that identifies the path to the NATed peer > must be in the route that specifies the particular proxy > that established the NAT mapping and added it to the > route state. > > B. Position in the route set does not matter, so long as the state > is somewhere in the set. > > This is related to another aspect of the route set that has been a > design goal previously but not exploited: that some state information is > specific to a particular proxy, and other state information could be > applied by any proxy in the same domain.
I fear that I don't understand the distinction you're making here. Basically, any route state information attached to the Route for a particular passage is specific to what is happening within that passage. If we use domain names in Route's, then any of a number of proxies might perform that passage's operation. But the operation will be done by the same plugin, using the same data, to accomplish the same ends. Using a domain name doesn't cause the data to cease being specific to that passage, and other passages using the same domain name in the Route will need separate route state. Dale _______________________________________________ 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/
