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@gmail.com>
To: serusers@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@tutpro.com> wrote:
> 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 that the
> 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@lists.iptel.org
> http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
>
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
Serusers@lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
Serusers@lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
  