RE: [Sip] B2BUA question.

["Brett Tate" <brett@broadsoft.com>]

> 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 :

A B2BUA can do everything that a UA can.  
In the process, the B2BUA can choose to 
proxy nothing or most everything over the 
multiple dialogs.

If someone wants to perform an exhaustive 
evaluation of proxy-vs-B2BUA, that
is more of a sipping issue since it deals
with network deployment.  However such
an evaluation gets complicated because
each vendor can code or configure their
B2BUA to varying degrees concerning what
information should be proxied.  Such a
decision is determined based upon 
the assigned task/service of the B2BUA.

Some products can even assume a 
dialog-stateful proxy role within a 
dialog; then it can morph into a B2BUA 
when it desires to start sending requests 
within established halves of a dialog.
(e.g. a dialog-stateful proxy which wants to 
release both halves of a dialog and can 
satisfy the authentication challenges.)  
After morphing into a B2BUA, it must be
careful within the 2 halves of the dialog
since it has trampled on another UA's 
CSeq space.

_______________________________________________
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