Subject: RE: [Sipping] Comments on lawrence-maxforward-problems

From: "Gordon Ledgard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 14:02:40 -0500

Maybe we should consider an explicit PING then, if so many find it
useful.

Regards,
Gordon Legard

Jonathan wrote:

> 
> I also like the suggestion for inclusion of the request message in the
> body of the response for diagnostic purposes. One thing though - lots
of
> folks use a SIP request with Max-Forwards of 0 as a single-hop ping to
> detect whether the downstream element is alive. Its really a waste to
> always include the request body in the response for these, as its not
> needed - this is truly a forced attempt at an error response.
> 

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

---

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 16:47:51 -0500

It doesnt help with this issue. A new SIP request with a method PING 
would be treated the same by existing proxies as any other new method. 
Thus, like any new method, it could loop and you'd need to have it 
rejected if Max-Forwards hits zero. In this case, you'd want the 
response to include the proposed body.

-Jonathan R.

-- 
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                   600 Lanidex Plaza
Director, Service Provider VoIP Architecture   Parsippany, NJ 07054-2711
Cisco Systems
[email-masked]                              FAX:   (973) 952-5050
http://www.jdrosen.net                         PHONE: (973) 952-5000
http://www.cisco.com