[Serdev] Concept for a SIP cluster implementation

[Zeus Ng]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nils Ohlmeier
> Sent: Friday, 30 September 2005 10:00 AM
> To: serdev at lists.iptel.org
> Subject: Re: [Serdev] Concept for a SIP cluster implementation
> 
> 

> The 305 reply is clearly underdefined in 3261. A recent 
> discussion on the SIP 
> mailing list showed that even the RFC authors do not exactly 
> know what the 

Well, I miss that discussions. Indeed, you had raised a very interested
scenario. Havn't thought of that before. For those who are interested, here
is the link of the thread:
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sip/current/msg11556.html

> expected behaviour for this reply is. The sip-route-construct 

I have always assumed one part of the proxy is performing the UAS role and
have the idea to use 305 for solving NAT problem for quite some time until
now. Looks like I'm wrong in assuming that. In scenario like you described
in that thread, I'm assuming the UAC part of the proxy will retransmit the
request without passing the reply upstream. But it's irrelevant to this
discussion.


> draft tries to 
> clarify this problem, but I doubt that there is a common 
> behavior of todays 
> UAs regarding this reply (if they react at all).



> 
>   Nils
>