Re: [Sip-implementors] "c" connection data change in SIP/183

2019-06-25 Thread Alex Hermann
Contact: > Content-Disposition: session;handling=required > Content-Type: application/sdp > Content-Length: 182 > > v=0 > o=username_3 3814 9111 IN IP4 req_uri_host > s=session_3 > c=IN IP4 called_media_IP_3 > t=0 0 > m=audio 19346 RTP/AVP 0 > c=IN IP4 called_media_IP_3 &g

[Sip-implementors] How to support Path extension on redirecting registrar

2011-02-10 Thread Alex Hermann
Hi, I'm trying to add support for the Path extension to my registrar. The registrar is providing the soft-switch with location information via a 302 redirect. My question is how do i send the path vector in that 302? Is there a standardized contact header parameter to do this? --

Re: [Sip-implementors] DNS Round Robin

2010-11-11 Thread Alex Hermann
erved by A records should be able to handle each others nonces, just like the case when SRV records are used. rfc3261 section 8.1.2 says that for each request, a new round through rfc3263 should be done. -- Greetings, Alex Hermann ___ Sip-implementor

Re: [Sip-implementors] Port/Domain - DNS SRV

2010-05-20 Thread Alex Hermann
P domain for which SRV > query was done) OR resolved domain from SRV for which DNS A query was done, > in URI part of SIP message? The transport layer of your SIP stack should never change the outgoing packet except for the Via header. -- Alex Hermann _

Re: [Sip-implementors] Popularity of SIP-over-TLS/TCP vs. SIP-over-UDP

2010-02-26 Thread Alex Hermann
says: "All SIP elements MUST implement UDP and TCP. SIP elements MAY implement other protocols." -- Alex Hermann ___ Sip-implementors mailing list Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors

Re: [Sip-implementors] Fraudulent BYE through a proxy doing accounting

2008-12-18 Thread Alex Hermann
On Thursday 18 December 2008 18:38:53 Paul Kyzivat wrote: > You are tying this to the GW because the GW has a cost to you? > If so, then why isn't it the GW that is generating the accounting? > > Or are you saying that you are routing the call to a GW, not controlled > by you, that will bill you? A

Re: [Sip-implementors] Fraudulent BYE through a proxy doing accounting

2008-12-18 Thread Alex Hermann
On Thursday 18 December 2008 15:10:21 IƱaki Baz Castillo wrote: > What about if the gateway sends a valid BYE, the proxy forwards it to > the user and the user doesn't reply 200 OK? > If the proxy should rely on the 200 OK for BYE then the this call > wouldn't be accounted. The accounting should e

Re: [Sip-implementors] Fraudulent BYE through a proxy doing accounting

2008-12-18 Thread Alex Hermann
On Thursday 18 December 2008, you wrote: > On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 12:18 PM, Alex Hermann wrote: > > Second, you should stop accounting on receiving the response on the BYE > > (200 OK) instead of on receipt of the request. > > Note that you might have no response at all a

Re: [Sip-implementors] Fraudulent BYE through a proxy doing accounting

2008-12-18 Thread Alex Hermann
nded the accounting for > this call since it received a BYE. If you want to keep doing accounting on the proxy, there are (at least) 2 ways to make this less likely to happen. First, BYE should be authenticated. Second, you should stop accounting on receiving the response on the BYE (200 OK) instea