10 Oct
2011
10 Oct
'11
4:20 p.m.
10 okt 2011 kl. 13:39 skrev Juha Heinanen:
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.
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. 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.
I think both of these solutions are huge improvements.
/O
The idea is that a client has two open
connections and two
registrations from the same device. The registrations has the same
UUID in the contact, but different reg-id's. When an edge proxy
returns 430 when the registrar uses one reg-id contact, the registrar
needs to retry with the other reg-id.
i just checked rfc5626 and in my opinion it has big flaw in that even if
an ua is configured with two ob proxies, rfc5626 does not require that
ua registers via both of them. rfc5626 thus just brings more complexity
without any benefit for implementing proxy redundancy.