[sr-dev] indicating gruu support

Daniel-Constantin Mierla miconda at gmail.com
Mon Apr 16 21:40:08 CEST 2012



On 4/16/12 7:47 PM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
> 2012/4/16 Daniel-Constantin Mierla<miconda at gmail.com>:
>>> Also take into account that RFC 5626 also mentions the ;reg-id Contact
>>> *header* param. A SIP client could send two REGISTER indicating same
>>> ;+sip.instance value and different ;reg-id values (1 and 2). When the
>>> registrar receives a request for the registered AoR it retrieves a
>>> single binding for all those existing bindings sharing ;+sip.instance,
>>> probably the binding with reg-id=1. If the connection is closed, then
>>> the registrar removes that binding and performs failover by using the
>>> binding with ;reg-id=2.
>>
>> So, even for same +sip.instance value can be several contact records, but
>> with different reg-id?
> Right. That's for registration failover:
>
>               Outbund-Proxy-1
>    UA                                       Registrar
>               Outbund-Proxy-2
>
> or:
>
>
>                    Registrar-1
>    UA
>                    Registrar-2
>
> (both Registrar-1 and Registrar-2 sharing same DB).
>
>
> The UA mantains two registrations alive, same +sip.instance (since
> it's the SAME device) but different reg-id values.
>
> NOTE that for this to work, the UA must be provided with two
> registration URI's or two Outbound proxies (or more).

so the failover should be done also for request within dialog, but this 
would be possible only in combination with gruu.

Is there a rule saying if a reg-id value sets priority of contact 
address, such as reg-id=1 must be selected first, and then reg-id=2, ...

Cheers,
Daniel
-- 
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
Kamailio Advanced Training, April 23-26, 2012, Berlin, Germany
http://www.asipto.com/index.php/kamailio-advanced-training/




More information about the sr-dev mailing list