[asterisk-users] Use of "603 Declined"

[Alex Balashov]

On 01/28/2010 04:47 PM, Kristian Kielhofner wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 4:23 PM, Alex Balashov
> <abalashov at evaristesys.com>  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/