Re: [Sip] Outbound Issues: slides 3 and 4

[Cullen Jennings <fluffy at cisco.com>]

On Aug 13, 2006, at 3:32 AM, Christer Holmberg ((JO/LMF)) wrote:

> Hi,
>
> > > MY problem is that I don't like to standardize behavior which is  
> > > based
>
> > > on sending something somewhere just to find out if the reciever
> > > supports the protocol in the first place.
> >
> > I will point out that when a UA is configured to send requests to
> sip:example.com:5060 the way we find out if that port
> > on that machine supports SIP is by sending a SIP request to it.  
> > I'm not
> sure I fully grasp the difference here.
>
> The difference is the following:
>
> If your UA is configured with a SIP address, the UA assumes SIP is
> supported.
>
> But, if it is not possible to configure (e.g. If the UA only gets  
> the IP
> address of the outbound proxy) whether the outbound proxy supports  
> STUN
> or not, I think it's bad that the UA shall start sending STUN requests
> in order to find out whether the outbound proxy supports STUN or not.

100% agree - I don't think the draft suggest this. I would be happy  
to add explicit text to the draft to say don't even think of doing  
something like this if that is causing confusion for people.




_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use sip-implementors at cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
Use sipping at ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip