Re: [Sip-implementors] Same SIP URI registered from multiple phones

2009-06-12 Thread Iñaki Baz Castillo
El Jueves, 11 de Junio de 2009, Brad Johnson escribió: > So we should append a "received" parameter containing our public > address:port to outbound Register requests, or to all requests? It's a clean way to solve NAT issues for *any* request (so the outbound proxy doesn't need to omodify the use

Re: [Sip-implementors] SIP Endpoing Disconnection

2009-06-12 Thread Paul Kyzivat
Victor Pascual Ávila wrote: > Hi Paul, > thanks for your comments. See responses inline. > > 2009/6/11 Paul Kyzivat : >> There is really no particular value in using session timers in this case. >> Session timer is for the benefit of record-routed proxies. > > Since session timer works fine eve

Re: [Sip-implementors] SIP Endpoing Disconnection

2009-06-12 Thread Dale Worley
On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 22:38 +0600, Manoj Priyankara [TG] wrote: > In this case UAC B should have a mechanism to release the call leg by > observing RTP (or some other protocol than SIP) and then of course UAS > can release the session. > > This seems to be a possible way to handle the situation if

Re: [Sip-implementors] SIP Endpoing Disconnection

2009-06-12 Thread Manoj Priyankara [TG]
Hi Dale, In this case UAC B should have a mechanism to release the call leg by observing RTP (or some other protocol than SIP) and then of course UAS can release the session. This seems to be a possible way to handle the situation if the both users are SIP end points. But what would happen if

Re: [Sip-implementors] SIP Endpoing Disconnection

2009-06-12 Thread Dale Worley
On Thu, 2009-06-11 at 15:11 +0600, Manoj Priyankara [TG] wrote: > Let us imagine that UAC's A and B are in a call and due to a network > connectivity problem, user A disconnects without sending any message to > the UAS. > Then the UAS still thinks that UAC A is alive. Of course if we have SIP > OPT

Re: [Sip-implementors] SIP Endpoing Disconnection

2009-06-12 Thread Victor Pascual Ávila
Hi Paul, thanks for your comments. See responses inline. 2009/6/11 Paul Kyzivat : > There is really no particular value in using session timers in this case. > Session timer is for the benefit of record-routed proxies. Since session timer works fine even if only one of the UAs supports it (i.e wi

Re: [Sip-implementors] Query related to RFC 4320 and 408 response

2009-06-12 Thread Pandurangan R S
Thanks. I think that makes sense. On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 12:09 AM, Vikram Chhibber wrote: > > The RFC is also emphasis not to propagate "stray" 408 response. In > your case, if the proxy has client-transaction, it should terminate it > and propagate the response else it should drop it. > Thus, i