[SIPForum-discussion] what is the sip proxy behaviour in case callee is not registered

[Ramakrishnan R]

This is done by provisioning, which is not specified by SIP specifications.
Without this feature, If the user has switched off his SIP phone, (i.e. when
the user will be unregistered) the cannot be forwarded...

On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 6:58 PM, tester voip <tester.voip1 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Both services are terminating services................When the UA itself is
> not a registered user, how can he avail these services................
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 5:26 PM, Ramakrishnan R <ram65.vidya at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> In case the user has subscribed for a "voice mail" or "call forward"
>> service, the call may be redirected to a voice mail server OR a "another
>> UA".
>>
>> Regards,
>> Ramki
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 1:59 AM, tester voip <tester.voip1 at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> two scenarios----
>>>
>>> 1.If the UA as never registered,In that case since it doesnt find the
>>> UA,so it'll send 404.
>>> 2. If UA had registered before but currently not available, then 480.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 4:16 PM, nitisha gupta <
>>> nitisha.gupta06 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi
>>>>
>>>> Can anyone please explain :
>>>>
>>>> what is the sip proxy behaviour in case callee is not registered?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>> Nitisha
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> This is the SIP Forum discussion mailing list
>>>> TO UNSUBSCRIBE, or edit your delivery options, please visit
>>>> http://sipforum.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
>>>> Post to the list at discussion at sipforum.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> This is the SIP Forum discussion mailing list
>>> TO UNSUBSCRIBE, or edit your delivery options, please visit
>>> http://sipforum.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
>>> Post to the list at discussion at sipforum.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sipforum.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20110731/d9509944/attachment-0002.html>