Re: [Sip-implementors] REGISTER R-URI with port parameter

2008-10-28 Thread Iñaki Baz Castillo
El Martes, 28 de Octubre de 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió: >From: =?iso-8859-1?q?I=F1aki_Baz_Castillo?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >El Viernes, 24 de Octubre de 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió: >> sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:5060 >> sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:15060 >>   

Re: [Sip-implementors] REGISTER R-URI with port parameter

2008-10-28 Thread Dale . Worley
From: =?iso-8859-1?q?I=F1aki_Baz_Castillo?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> El Viernes, 24 de Octubre de 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió: > sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:5060 > sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:15060 > sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:25060 > sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:35060

Re: [Sip-implementors] REGISTER R-URI with port parameter

2008-10-27 Thread Stephen Paterson
-implementors] REGISTER R-URI with port parameter El Viernes, 24 de Octubre de 2008, Alex Balashov escribió: > > Well, not totally needed. A UA could construct a REGISTER like this: > > > > REGISTER sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] SIP/2.0 > > > > and sent it to host:15060. > > &g

Re: [Sip-implementors] REGISTER R-URI with port parameter

2008-10-24 Thread Iñaki Baz Castillo
El Viernes, 24 de Octubre de 2008, Alex Balashov escribió: > > Well, not totally needed. A UA could construct a REGISTER like this: > > > > REGISTER sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] SIP/2.0 > > > > and sent it to host:15060. > > > > For example Twinkle does it if you set the registrar in a port different >

Re: [Sip-implementors] REGISTER R-URI with port parameter

2008-10-24 Thread Alex Balashov
Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote: > El Viernes, 24 de Octubre de 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió: >> sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:5060 >> sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:15060 >> sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:25060 >> sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:35060 >> >> In that case, the request-URI of the REGISTER n

Re: [Sip-implementors] REGISTER R-URI with port parameter

2008-10-24 Thread Iñaki Baz Castillo
El Viernes, 24 de Octubre de 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió: > sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:5060 > sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:15060 > sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:25060 > sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:35060 > > In that case, the request-URI of the REGISTER needs to contain the > proper port

Re: [Sip-implementors] REGISTER R-URI with port parameter

2008-10-24 Thread Iñaki Baz Castillo
El Viernes, 24 de Octubre de 2008, Stephen Paterson escribió: > Hi all, > > Is it valid for a REGISTER request to contain a port parameter? > e.g. REGISTER sip:example.com:4060 > > I can't see anything in RFC 3261 that explicitly bans it. userinfo and @ > yes, but not port. I may be looking in the

Re: [Sip-implementors] REGISTER R-URI with port parameter

2008-10-24 Thread Dale . Worley
From: "Stephen Paterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Is it valid for a REGISTER request to contain a port parameter? e.g. REGISTER sip:example.com:4060 The request-URI should be the hostport part of the address of record to which you are registering the contact. In almost all cases, the addres

Re: [Sip-implementors] REGISTER R-URI with port parameter

2008-10-24 Thread Stephen Paterson
ashov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 24 October 2008 17:27 To: Stephen Paterson Cc: sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] REGISTER R-URI with port parameter What purpose would it serve to have a port? You can send the REGISTER request to an alternate port beside

Re: [Sip-implementors] REGISTER R-URI with port parameter

2008-10-24 Thread Alex Balashov
What purpose would it serve to have a port? You can send the REGISTER request to an alternate port besides UDP 5060 without including that port in the domain part of the RURI. Stephen Paterson wrote: > Hi all, > > Is it valid for a REGISTER request to contain a port parameter? > e.g. REGISTER

[Sip-implementors] REGISTER R-URI with port parameter

2008-10-24 Thread Stephen Paterson
Hi all, Is it valid for a REGISTER request to contain a port parameter? e.g. REGISTER sip:example.com:4060 I can't see anything in RFC 3261 that explicitly bans it. userinfo and @ yes, but not port. I may be looking in the wrong place. It may be that it is implicitly banned by 10.2 but I'm not