Re: [Sip-implementors] Could I please be removed form the mailing list?

List-Unsubscribe: , -- Iñaki Baz Castillo ___ Sip-implementors mailing list Sip-implementors@lists.

[Sip-implementors] Could I please be removed form the mailing list?

___ Sip-implementors mailing list Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors

Re: [Sip-implementors] UAC behaviour if symmetric NAT is detected

> It's completely off the OP's original question and I have already > promised to leave his question alone but I just can't resist one > more ill-conceived notion. Sure :D > My solution ... symmetric NATs ... ALG's ... make them disappear ... > Most SIP calls ... provider server ... replace their

Re: [Sip-implementors] Server uri in which header field ?

2010/3/15 Tuan Viet Nguyen : > Hello, > > I would like to give an UAC the uri of 2 servers in the 200 OK message in > registration procedure. Is it a custom usage? > For the first server, i use the Service-Route header > but i don't know which header to use to encapsulate the uri of the 2nd > se

[Sip-implementors] Server uri in which header field ?

Hello, I would like to give an UAC the uri of 2 servers in the 200 OK message in registration procedure. For the first server, i use the Service-Route header but i don't know which header to use to encapsulate the uri of the 2nd server. Do you have any ideas ? Is it possible to set a text/plain c

Re: [Sip-implementors] UAC behaviour if symmetric NAT is detected

2010/3/15 Aaron Clauson : >> >In my humble opinion if proxying media is the answer >> >> Proxing the media is NOT the anwser. > > I agree entirely that's why I find the TURN (which does proxy the media) so > against the grain. But again, TURN must be used just in a few cases (specially when both

Re: [Sip-implementors] UAC behaviour if symmetric NAT is detected

> -Original Message- > From: Iñaki Baz Castillo [mailto:i...@aliax.net] > Sent: Monday, 15 March 2010 2:57 PM > > AFAIK TURN is just required in case both endpoints are behind > different symmetric NAT routers. IMHO there is enough cases in which > this doesn't happen so ICE is really *suit

Re: [Sip-implementors] [sipcore] RFC 3263 - why require use port in Request-URI?

Nancy Greene wrote: > Ok, thanks, but what about this paragraph? >If the TARGET was not a numeric IP address, but a port is present in >the URI, the client performs an A or record lookup of the domain >name. The result will be a list of IP addresses, each of which can >be c

Re: [Sip-implementors] [sipcore] RFC 3263 - why require use port in Request-URI?

Ok, thanks, but what about this paragraph? If the TARGET was not a numeric IP address, but a port is present in the URI, the client performs an A or record lookup of the domain name. The result will be a list of IP addresses, each of which can be contacted at the specific port fr

Re: [Sip-implementors] Offer-answer question

2010/3/12 Aneesh Naik : > Hi Michael, > >      This will not be allowed. A (UAC) has sent all the codecs it supports, > and B (UAS) has respoded with the codecs it is willing to talk to A for this > call. Only one codec will be negotiated for media transfer between A and B. > In your example below,

Re: [Sip-implementors] UAC behaviour if symmetric NAT is detected

Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote: > AFAIK TURN is just required in case both endpoints are behind > different symmetric NAT routers. IMHO there is enough cases in which > this doesn't happen so ICE is really *suitable*. It's really good to hear that I'm not alone with this opinion ;-) -- mail: tho...@g

Re: [Sip-implementors] UAC behaviour if symmetric NAT is detected

Aaron Clauson wrote: > ICE (which is STUNv2 and TURN) may be better at handling NATs but it > requires TURN for the cases that STUNv1 couldn't handle and TURN isn't > a signalling solution. In my humble opinion if proxying media is the > answer why not just multiplex the media and the signalling in

Re: [Sip-implementors] UAC behaviour if symmetric NAT is detected

2010/3/15 Aaron Clauson : > ICE (which is STUNv2 and TURN) may be better at handling NATs but it > requires TURN for the cases that STUNv1 couldn't handle and TURN isn't a > signalling solution. AFAIK TURN is just required in case both endpoints are behind different symmetric NAT routers. IMHO th

Re: [Sip-implementors] [sipcore] RFC 3263 - why require use port in Request-URI?

switching to sip-implementors list Nancy Greene wrote: > Thanks for the answer, but I'd like to know why the RFC is written the way it > is. > > What if there is an intermediate SIP proxy between the target in the > Request-URI and the proxy trying to reach it? That intermediate SIP proxy > d

Re: [Sip-implementors] UAC behaviour if symmetric NAT is detected

> -Original Message- > From: Thomas Gelf [mailto:tho...@gelf.net] > Sent: Monday, 15 March 2010 12:58 PM > To: Aaron Clauson > Cc: sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu > Subject: Re: UAC behaviour if symmetric NAT is detected > > > Aaron Clauson wrote: > > It's better that a user agent d

[Sip-implementors] ACM IPTComm 2010 (5 days to submission)

4th ACM Conference on Principles, Systems and Applications of IP Telecommunications (IPTComm 2010) http://www.iptcomm.org August 2-3, 2010 Leibniz Supercomputing Center Munich, Ger

Re: [Sip-implementors] Multiple device registration

Hello, On 03/15/2010 09:32 AM, Premalatha Kuppan wrote: > Hi, > > I want to use multiple devices to be participated during a call. > > This is my scenario. I have two different devices and during a call flow > want to use both the devices. > > Will concept of GRUU would help ? Else, how do i make

Re: [Sip-implementors] UAC behaviour if symmetric NAT is detected

Aaron Clauson wrote: > ICE (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-19) and STUN > (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3265) are the two documents I know of that > attempt to help SIP agents cope with NAT. In my own opinion the proposals in > these documents are making a bad situation worse. I

Re: [Sip-implementors] [GRUU] is instance-id mandatory in 2xx ofREGISTER?

Inaki,> Is '+sip.instance' a Contact URI param or a Contact header param?> The registrar should store all the Contact URI params and also reply them.It is a Contact header param. Is there any diff between the processsingof header and uri parameters at Registrar? Contact: ;pub-gruu=

Re: [Sip-implementors] Multiple device registration

2010/3/15 Premalatha Kuppan : > Hi, Please, don't send the same mail to different maillists at the same time. -- Iñaki Baz Castillo ___ Sip-implementors mailing list Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listi

[Sip-implementors] Multiple device registration

Hi, I want to use multiple devices to be participated during a call. This is my scenario. I have two different devices and during a call flow want to use both the devices. Will concept of GRUU would help ? Else, how do i make it ? I appreciate your valuable help. Thanks, Premalatha ___