9 Oct
2008
9 Oct
'08
12:56 a.m.
On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 11:41 PM, Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc(a)aliax.net> wrote:
El Miércoles, 8 de Octubre de 2008, Victor Pascual
Ávila escribió:
I'm afraid I don't agree here: one could use a transparent B2BUA (i.e.
B2BUA used as a Proxy Server). The B2BUA would copy the message from
the inbound leg to the outbound leg and could modify the VIA header--
yes, it is not really elegant but still feasible.
Actually I understand this document to be part of
a research project.
I don't believe that ignoring a VIA header or preventing a SIP entity
from inserting a VIA header is a common praxis in the industry. But as
you might imagine, research is research and prototypes are prototypes
Well, however this is completely unfeasible since it would involve modifying
all the SIP devices to be compliant with this non RFC3261 specification. Also, it's a completely crazy idea. What to do in
the following scenarios?
a) UAC --- (udp) --> LB proxy -- (tcp) --> UAS
b) UAC --- (tcp) --> LB proxy -- (udp) --> UAS
Note that replies for a transaction must use the same network transport, so
it's just impossible that UAS in case a) (who receives the request via TCP
from proxy) to reply UAC directly using UDP.
I think we already had this discussion in sip-implementors. Anyway, in
this scenario, I consider the LB to act as a simple dispatcher and not
as a "transport converter". But you are right.
Thanks for your comments,
--
Victor Pascual Ávila