Re: [Ekiga-list] Yet another "406 not acceptable" thread
Le lundi 25 août 2008 à 13:19 +0200, michel memeteau a écrit : > Hi I don't know all the technical details about this , but the results > seems to be that when using Xlite ( ICE & Turn enable it seems ) with > a symmetric NAT and with "register and receive calls " enable , I got > 406 errors. > > Is this related to the way Xlite sends the Ip address of my machine > and that the NAT is symmetric or the fact that "receiving calls" with > Ekiga.net which is not a Call-out service is refused ? The fact that using ICE and Turn does not seem to have an effect. It will reject the PDU if it contains private IP addresses. > All this leads me to another topic : What graphical feedback that > Ekiga 3.0 will give when it in front of a NAT that RTP won't go > through ? As all is handled automagically now. A popup. -- _ Damien Sandras (o- //\Ekiga Softphone : http://www.ekiga.org/ v_/_ NOVACOM : http://www.novacom.be/ FOSDEM : http://www.fosdem.org/ SIP Phone : sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ ekiga-list mailing list ekiga-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/ekiga-list
Re: [Ekiga-list] Yet another "406 not acceptable" thread
Hi I don't know all the technical details about this , but the results seems to be that when using Xlite ( ICE & Turn enable it seems ) with a symmetric NAT and with "register and receive calls " enable , I got 406 errors. Is this related to the way Xlite sends the Ip address of my machine and that the NAT is symmetric or the fact that "receiving calls" with Ekiga.net which is not a Call-out service is refused ? All this leads me to another topic : What graphical feedback that Ekiga 3.0 will give when it in front of a NAT that RTP won't go through ? As all is handled automagically now. On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 12:48 PM, Damien Sandras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Le lundi 25 août 2008 à 12:46 +0200, Sébastien Mazy a écrit : >> Off-topic: >> I'm curious to know why you chose to reject private IP addresses. It >> doesn't prevent one from putting calls. Were you fed up with "I can't >> received calls" support resquests? >> > > Exactly ;-) -- %<--->% Michel memeteau Blog 0.2 : http://memeteau.free.fr Fixe : 0874763294 Mobile : 0624808051 VOIP | Visio: sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] jabber/GoogleTalk : xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ ekiga-list mailing list ekiga-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/ekiga-list
Re: [Ekiga-list] Yet another "406 not acceptable" thread
Le lundi 25 août 2008 à 12:46 +0200, Sébastien Mazy a écrit : > Hi Damien, > > On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 12:34 PM, Damien Sandras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I changed to 606. 488 is related to media formats in general. > > Wow, this is reactivity. Many thanks! > > Off-topic: > I'm curious to know why you chose to reject private IP addresses. It > doesn't prevent one from putting calls. Were you fed up with "I can't > received calls" support resquests? > Exactly ;-) -- _ Damien Sandras (o- //\Ekiga Softphone : http://www.ekiga.org/ v_/_ NOVACOM : http://www.novacom.be/ FOSDEM : http://www.fosdem.org/ SIP Phone : sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ ekiga-list mailing list ekiga-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/ekiga-list
Re: [Ekiga-list] Yet another "406 not acceptable" thread
Hi Damien, On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 12:34 PM, Damien Sandras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I changed to 606. 488 is related to media formats in general. Wow, this is reactivity. Many thanks! Off-topic: I'm curious to know why you chose to reject private IP addresses. It doesn't prevent one from putting calls. Were you fed up with "I can't received calls" support resquests? Cheers, -- Sébastien Mazy ___ ekiga-list mailing list ekiga-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/ekiga-list
Re: [Ekiga-list] Yet another "406 not acceptable" thread
Le dimanche 24 août 2008 à 22:01 +0200, Sébastien Mazy a écrit : > Hi, > > I hope it's the right place to talk about ekiga.net service (not > software), otherwise I'm sorry for it. > > ekiga.net registrar responds with "406 NOT ACCEPTABLE" error to > REGISTER requests which contain a private IP address in their Via or > Contact header fields. While it's a choice to reject such requests, is > the 406 error the most suitable for this case? I took a look at the > RFC3261 definition [1] in order to understand what this error really > meant and what I read (bad Accept header) doesn't really seem to > match: "don't want to accept REGISTER message with private IP". > > What do you think? Would it be possible to change the error code for a > more suitable one? (just asking, take no offense) > > [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3261#section-21.4.7 > I changed to 606. 488 is related to media formats in general. -- _ Damien Sandras (o- //\Ekiga Softphone : http://www.ekiga.org/ v_/_ NOVACOM : http://www.novacom.be/ FOSDEM : http://www.fosdem.org/ SIP Phone : sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ ekiga-list mailing list ekiga-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/ekiga-list
Re: [Ekiga-list] Yet another "406 not acceptable" thread
On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 10:53 AM, Damien Sandras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > And what error code would you suggest ? How about 488 "not acceptable here"? http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3261#section-21.4.26 -- Sébastien Mazy ___ ekiga-list mailing list ekiga-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/ekiga-list
Re: [Ekiga-list] Yet another "406 not acceptable" thread
Le dimanche 24 août 2008 à 22:01 +0200, Sébastien Mazy a écrit : > Hi, > > I hope it's the right place to talk about ekiga.net service (not > software), otherwise I'm sorry for it. > > ekiga.net registrar responds with "406 NOT ACCEPTABLE" error to > REGISTER requests which contain a private IP address in their Via or > Contact header fields. While it's a choice to reject such requests, is > the 406 error the most suitable for this case? I took a look at the > RFC3261 definition [1] in order to understand what this error really > meant and what I read (bad Accept header) doesn't really seem to > match: "don't want to accept REGISTER message with private IP". > > What do you think? Would it be possible to change the error code for a > more suitable one? (just asking, take no offense) > > [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3261#section-21.4.7 > And what error code would you suggest ? -- _ Damien Sandras (o- //\Ekiga Softphone : http://www.ekiga.org/ v_/_ NOVACOM : http://www.novacom.be/ FOSDEM : http://www.fosdem.org/ SIP Phone : sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ ekiga-list mailing list ekiga-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/ekiga-list
[Ekiga-list] Yet another "406 not acceptable" thread
Hi, I hope it's the right place to talk about ekiga.net service (not software), otherwise I'm sorry for it. ekiga.net registrar responds with "406 NOT ACCEPTABLE" error to REGISTER requests which contain a private IP address in their Via or Contact header fields. While it's a choice to reject such requests, is the 406 error the most suitable for this case? I took a look at the RFC3261 definition [1] in order to understand what this error really meant and what I read (bad Accept header) doesn't really seem to match: "don't want to accept REGISTER message with private IP". What do you think? Would it be possible to change the error code for a more suitable one? (just asking, take no offense) [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3261#section-21.4.7 Cheers, -- Sébastien Mazy ___ ekiga-list mailing list ekiga-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/ekiga-list
