[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Sip] Comparison of retargeting proposals
Well... for some strange reason IMS uses IETF SIP.
I agree with you that reality is often just not right.
;-)
/Hans Erik
-----Original Message-----
From: Hadriel Kaplan [mailto:HKaplan at acmepacket.com]
Sent: Friday, April 04, 2008 7:35 PM
To: Hans Erik van Elburg; Francois Audet; Christer Holmberg; Juha
Heinanen
Cc: sip at ietf.org; DOLLY, MARTIN C, ATTLABS
Subject: RE: [Sip] Comparison of retargeting proposals
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sip-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:sip-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Hans Erik van Elburg
>
> I think that in a closed environment like IMS where all proxies can be
> guaranteed to support loose routing, there is effectively almost no
> difference between P-Called-Party-ID and Target header.
I beg to differ - even in IMS all "proxies" cannot be guaranteed to be
doing loose-routing, if by that you mean not changing the req-uri as
they forward. What's written in IMS specs and what's getting
deployed/configured in the field are not identical all of the time, nor
in all scenarios for the same IMS network... much like IETF SIP.
(this is not to say that this has any impact on the gist of your comment
or the proposals - just noting that "IMS specs" and IMS reality are not
one and the same, as you're probably aware)
-hadriel
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list https://www.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