Subject: RE: [Sip] Outbound: Multiple flows and forking

From: "Christer Holmberg \(JO/LMF\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2006 09:27:17 +0200

Hi Erkki,

Your proposed text change looks good.

If we want to call it something else than "primary and secondary" I am
ok with that too. 

However, I am not sure "load balancing" is the best possible wording,
because my understanding is that the purpose of contacting multiple
outbound proxies is more related to realiablilty than load balancing.

Regards,

Christer 

-----Original Message-----
From: Juha Heinanen [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: 7. huhtikuuta 2006 10:16
To: [email-masked]
Cc: Christer Holmberg (JO/LMF); [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Sip] Outbound: Multiple flows and forking

[email-masked] writes:

 > To me these two flows look equivalent from the proxy / registrar  >
perspective. I could not find any normative text to state that  > when
forwarding inbound requests, the primary flow should be  > preferred
over the backup flow.

to me, load balancing sounds a better idea that using primarily the
primary proxy.

-- juha

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip
Use [email-masked] for new developments on the application of sip

---

From: Juha Heinanen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2006 10:49:56 +0300

> outbound proxies is more related to realiablilty than load balancing.

if it is possible to achieve both at the same time, it is stupid to do
only one.

-- juha