10 Oct
2011
10 Oct
'11
2:31 p.m.
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:jh@188.67.205.145:35327;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