[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Sip] B2BUA question.
Some comments re scenario 2 inline.
Eric
> Scenario 2 -
>
> I am not sure if this part of the email belongs here or in the implementers list. Let me know if I should move this part of the email to the implementers list.
>
> UA1 B2BUA UA2 UA3
> |-- INVITE -------> | | |
> | CID:1 | -- INVITE ---->| |
> | | CID:2 | |
> | | | |
> | | -- INVITE ----------------->|
> | | CID:3 | |
> | | | |
> | | <-- 200 OK --- | |
> | <---- 200 OK ---- | | |
> | | <-- 200 OK -----------------|
> | <----- 200 OK --- | | |
> ?????????
> Can this be forwarded.
>
> In this scenario the B2BUA, on receiving the INVITE request from UA1, generates new INVITE request to two UAs, UA2 and UA3. (A similar scenario will occur if a downstream proxy forks and receives multiple 200 OKs.)
>
> - Can the B2BUA generate two INVITE/Requests, for one incoming INVITE/Request? Is this allowed by the protocol/definition of B2BUA?
>
> IMO this should be allowed.
Yes, this is allowed. The B2BUA at this point would look like:
|----|-----|
| | UAC |
|UAS |-----|
| | UAC |
|----|-----|
>
> Now both the UAs respond with 200 OK responses.
>
> - Is the B2BUA allowed to generate two responses towards UA1 (with different to-tags)?
>
> IMO this also should be allowed.
No, I don't think this is allowed. These are 3 completely distinct SIP
dialogs. In fact, the 200 OK sent by UAS to UA1 should have a different
to-tag from the to-tag received from UA2 and UA3.
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
Use sipping@ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip