Olle E. Johansson writes: > The main difference compared with RFC 3261 is that the burden of > connection management - UDP, TCP or STCP - is put on the UA. > The proxy reuse the connection created by the UA for outbound > requests, but does NOT open new connections.
there is no difference to what my proxy does today. it does not try to setup tcp connections to ua (set_forward_no_connect()) and udp is a bad idea anyway. > The specification also adds the ability, but not the requirement, > to handle multiple connections (flows) from the same UA to different proxys > as failover connections. This will indeed make TCP failover faster and > propably SHOULD be a requirement for TCP/TLS. yes, but since it is NOT a requirement, you don't get any benefit. > Previously it was impossible to > recognize that multiple registrations was from the same UA, so the proxy > had to fork to all of them and just hope that the UA had some merged fork > detection. this is indeed an improvement as i have already mentioned and very easy to implement in the ua. baresip, for example, does add +sip.instance param to contact header: REGISTER sip:test.fi SIP/2.0. Via: SIP/2.0/TCP 188.67.205.145:35327;branch=z9hG4bKfa4a89e63adaf759;rport. Contact: <sip:[email protected]:35327;transport=tcp>;expires=600;+sip.instance="<urn:uuid:c79b8de4-6c2f-4d48-a347-d13d9b19d255>". but does not add Supported: gruu in requests. so my suggestion is to put priority in adding +sip.instance support to sr registrar/usrloc implementation. -- juha _______________________________________________ sr-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev
