On 01/28/2010 04:47 PM, Kristian Kielhofner wrote: > On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 4:23 PM, Alex Balashov > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> It's also problematic because a 3261-compliant SIP proxy or UAC is not >> going to attempt to reach the destination by alternate means (serial >> forking in the case of the proxy, or a new call leg in the case of the >> UA) because of this precise implication of 6xx-class final replies. >> >> -- Alex > > This is precisely why some proxies (including OpenSIPS& Kamailio) > have added the disable_6xx_block parameter to specifically "break" > this "3261-compliant" behavior. Of course this being a global proxy > parameter prevents cases where you really do want a 603 to stop > forking. I've read that OpenSIPS is going to make it possible to > activate this behavior via flags or some other means but in the > meantime I'd like to see Asterisk be a little more flexible and um, > friendly in this case. Luckily Asterisk is open source and I can make > that change if I like but...
I was just about to mention the disable_6xx_block parameter, but figured it would be too pedantic/off-topic for this thread. > A quick poll: > > Who thinks Asterisk should severely limit the cases it sends 6xx responses? I can't think of any cases where it should be used except where some sort of formal error arises, to be honest. When is Asterisk ever in an authoritative position to deem a destination certifiably unreachable except, perhaps, an invalid IP address, unresolvable host, or something of that sort? -- Alex Balashov - Principal Evariste Systems LLC Tel : +1 678-954-0670 Direct : +1 678-954-0671 Web : http://www.evaristesys.com/ -- _____________________________________________________________________ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
