[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Sip] B2BUA & Max-Forwards
Kedar Patil wrote:
This discussion raises one more doubt for me, pls. clarify.
UA1------->BtoBUA---------->UA2
>
Is the BtoBUA a SIP endpoint from UA1's point of view? In other
words, are the the "Require:" etc end-to-end headers sent by UA1,
meant for B2BUA or UA2?
As Adam pointed out in an earlier email in this thread, "A B2BUA cannot
transparently pass Require through. It must understand and invoke the
extension indicated." (rfc3261 says the same; see sec 20.32) Having
said that, I realize that there exist what are called transparent B2BUAs
that pass e2e headers through without operating on them. Time and
experience will decide if they are a boon or a bane; right now my
personal feeling is that a proxy is a far more better tool than a
transparent B2BUA. It plays by the rules and is unlikely to break
e2e feature support.
Is the UAS part in in BtoBUA is bound by the definition and rules
in 3261?
Yes, it is a UA.
- vijay
--
Vijay K. Gurbani vkg@{lucent.com,research.bell-labs.com,acm.org}
Wireless Networks Group/Internet Software and Services
Lucent Technologies/Bell Labs Innovations, 2000 Lucent Lane, Rm 6G-440
Naperville, Illinois 60566 Voice: +1 630 224 0216
_______________________________________________
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