11 Sep
2006
11 Sep
'06
9:59 a.m.
Hi Roger,
I think that was Juha's point: we don't.
302 was created to enable a user agent to communicate back to the other
user agent that it can be reached somewhere else. Thus, your server
should relay the 302 and the receiving user agent should then decide
what to do. Some UAs immediate initiate a new call, while others
(e.g.software agents) may pop up a question to the user: "Callee is not
available, but can be reached at location" (which of course may well be
an international PSTN call that can be expensive).
Some UAs also have options that can be set: How to handle redirects
Server-centric forwarding can be better handled by user preferences and
loading av pairs.
That being said, I remember a thread a while ago with a discussion on
how to turn a 302 into a forwarding. I don't remember the outcome, but
it is probably possible, although not according to the RFCs. You do
have some problems though, e.g. if the UA sends back an email uri etc.
And of course, as people tend to follow RFCs, you will probably get one
angry customer if he realizes that his 302 generates a cost. If you have
control over the UA and have decided to use 302 instead of the more
standardized call forward scenario, you really are making problems for
yourself.
g-)
Roger Lewau wrote:
Hello Juha and Andrey
302 "Moved temporarily" is definately about forwarding/redirecting
calls. This is how the vast majority of all IP phones and ATAs handle
call forwarding. It might not be the intended use of 302 according to
RFCs, even if I see nothing that says otherwise, but this is how it is
used in end devices today. This brings us back to my original
question. How do you guys handle 302 redirection so that costs are
charged to the callee.
Kind regards
Roger
-----Original Message-----
From: "Andrey Kouprianov" <andrey.kouprianov(a)gmail.com>
To: serusers(a)iptel.org
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 12:51:09 +0700
Subject: Re: [Serusers] Handling 302 responses
You can also use 302 responses to gather some information about the
remote party. Contacts returned in the response are not necessarily
the SIP URI's. I've tried using mail addresses, SIP tel: URI's and
HTTP URLs too.
So, if the remote party is Busy at the moment, but has other ways to
let u contact them, 302 is one of the answers to this.
On 9/11/06, Juha Heinanen <jh(a)tutpro.com> wrote:
that
the
Roger Lewau writes:
> In my mind that statement is completely off the wall, it is
not the
> requesting client that should be
responsible for establishing
the forwarded
> call, it never is in the rest of the
telecom industry so why
should it be
the case
for SIP?
302 is not about "forwarded call". it just tells the caller callee is at some other uri, which the caller may
or may not wish to
contact. in many pstn networks, you can hear an announcement
that the
number you tried is not in use and you should try
another number
instead.
if callee wants to "forward" calls, he has other means for that
purpose,
for example, his phone can forward the invite to
some other uri
or he
may configure his proxy to do so.
-- juha
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
Serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
Serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
Serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers