[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Sip] B2BUA question.
Some of my opinion below. I agree that there is a need for some common
understanding of B2BUA. Perhaps an informational I-D is in order.
Eric
"Kaul, Amit" wrote:
>
> I agree that we might want to limit our discussion only within SIP
> properties
> of B2BUA to get some common understanding of B2BUA as a SIP logical entity.
>
> In addition to few queries which Chinmay has pointed out,I can think of
> some basic points that need to be clarified/discussed about B2BUA :
>
> - Can B2BUA behave as a forwarding agent like Proxy, witout initiating
> a new dialog ?
No. Remember B2BUA, Proxy etc are logical entity. A physical
implementation (say call it a SIP server) may be a combination of a
B2BUA and a Proxy, and an INVITE may be handled by the Proxy part.
>
> - Can B2BUA decide to Fork like a Proxy ?
A B2BUA can certainly make 2 outbound calls on receipt of 1 incoming
call. But the call flow is different from a Proxy e.g. Chinmay scenario
2
>
> - Can B2BUA decide to switch between UAC/UAS and Proxy functionality like
>
> Proxy and Redirect functionality.
As above, a SIP server that implements the B2BUA, Proxy and Redirect
server logical entities can do this.
>
> - Is it mandatory for B2BUA to be always call-stateful ?
Yes, I think so.
>
> - Since a UA can be stateless (RFC3261 Sec 8.2.7), is stateless B2BUA
> also possible ?
The UAS part of a B2BUA can behave in the way describe in sec 8.2.7 to
challenge unauthenticated requests.
>
> - Finally, can B2BUA be called as a combination of "Proxy and UAS/UAC"
> or just "UAS/UAC" combo ?
See above. I think it is cleaner to keep the logical entities as clean
as possible.
_______________________________________________
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