Hi! On 07.08.2008 14:05, Vadim Lebedev wrote: > If i remember correctly SIP RFC reccomends this behaviour,
I just checked the RFC (again) and found no sign of this recommandation. In fact I only found Chapter 18 (Transport) in the RFC3261[1] which is quoted like this: "Note that, because the source port is often ephemeral, but it cannot be known whether it is ephemeral or selected through procedures in [4], connections accepted by the transport layer will frequently not be reused." which makes sense because SIP is on top of TCP/UDP and should not interfere in transport layer matters... [1] http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc3261.html [4] http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc3263.html After some research I also found [2] which encourage me to (really) think that always opening the same (source) port on client side can not be right way to do it! What do you think? [2] http://www.gont.com.ar/drafts/port-randomization/draft-larsen-tsvwg-port-randomization-01.html > Anyway, it think that in advanced config options we can set a SIP port nr Yes, thanks, I know. FTR: "network.sip.local" is the setting in question but I would prefer a random source port selection over a fixed one... Any pros and cons, anybody? Greetings, - Darsha _______________________________________________ QuteCom-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qutecom.org/mailman/listinfo/qutecom-dev
