Hi
Thanks for the reply..One more of clarification
required..
So If UA wishes to create multiple transport flows
with "sip:primary.example.com"(As specified in
draft-ietf-sip-outbound-20#section-13 to honor RFC3261 requirement for message
size greater than MTU), would it be OK it one FLOW lands on Host1
and other FLOW lands on Host2?
i.e for example if "sip:primary.example.com" got
resolved into (IP1, Port1, TCP) -> (IP2, Port2, TCP) -> (IP2, Port2,
UDP) -> (IP1, Port1, UDP) in that order, and if UA wises to create both TCP
and UDP FLOWs with "sip:primary.example.com", then it starts creating TCP FLOW
with (IP1, Port1, TCP) and can create a UDP FLOW with (IP2, Port2, UDP) based
on RFC 3263 procedures. Is my understanding correct here?
In the above example, if (IP1) is down/crashed for
some reasons, then "sip:primary.example.com", can never use the TCP FLOW for
transporting inbound messages to that UA (Even though the IP1 and IP2 are
state synchronized) until User Agent detects the FLOW failure with (IP1) and
re-create the TCP FLOW with (IP1 or IP2). Is my understanding correct
here?
Please clarify..
Regard
Srikanth
You
would have 2. One for primary, and one for secondary. For each one of
those, you would use normal RFC 3263 procedures for determining which SRV
record to use.
Hi
As specified in
section 3.3/3.4 of draft-ietf-sip-outbound-20 draft, If a UA is configured
with a outbound-proxy-set with two proxy uris: "sip:primary.example.com" and
"sip:secondary.example.com" And for example, "sip:primary.example.com" got
DNS resolved in to two SRV records "Host1" and "Host2" and
"sip:secondary.example.com" got DNS resolved in to "Host3" and "Host4",
Should UA create four FLOWs, One with each host OR just two FLOWs, one
with each proxy URI(i.e one flow with either Host1 or Host2 and second flow
with Host3 or Host4)?
Please
clarify.
Regards
Srikanth