El Miércoles, 15 de Octubre de 2008, Paul Kyzivat escribió:
> > Yes, you mean the 3rd party registration, is it?
>
> Technically this isn't 3rd party registration, which has nothing to do
> with the value of the contacts.
Oh yes, sure, it's a failure of mine. In fact I already knewn the 3rd
regi
Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
> El Miércoles, 15 de Octubre de 2008, Paul Kyzivat escribió:
>> Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
>>> El Martes, 14 de Octubre de 2008, Paul Kyzivat escribió:
I was thinking of something more extreme:
REGISTER sip:example.com
To: sip:[EMAIL P
El Miércoles, 15 de Octubre de 2008, Paul Kyzivat escribió:
> Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
> > El Martes, 14 de Octubre de 2008, Paul Kyzivat escribió:
> >> I was thinking of something more extreme:
> >>
> >> REGISTER sip:example.com
> >> To: sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> From: si
Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
> El Martes, 14 de Octubre de 2008, Paul Kyzivat escribió:
>> I was thinking of something more extreme:
>>
>> REGISTER sip:example.com
>> To: sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> From: sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Contact: sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
El Martes, 14 de Octubre de 2008, Paul Kyzivat escribió:
> I was thinking of something more extreme:
>
> REGISTER sip:example.com
> To: sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> From: sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Contact: sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Contact: sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> w
Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
> 2008/10/13 Paul Kyzivat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> You say you don't consider the connection reuse draft. But you should,
>> because its intent is to clarify behavior that is unclear in 3261.
>
> Well, what I want to know is why all the SIP TCP phones I've tryed
> beh
2008/10/13 Paul Kyzivat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> You say you don't consider the connection reuse draft. But you should,
> because its intent is to clarify behavior that is unclear in 3261.
Well, what I want to know is why all the SIP TCP phones I've tryed
behind NAT allow receiving requests via the
Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It's very common that when a UA1 sends a REGISTER via TCP from a random port
> 1, if the connection remains open (for example using ping-pong method),
> the proxy can send request to UA1 using that TCP connection.
> Is really this behaviour defined in RF
Hi,
It's very common that when a UA1 sends a REGISTER via TCP from a random port
1, if the connection remains open (for example using ping-pong method),
the proxy can send request to UA1 using that TCP connection.
Is really this behaviour defined in RFC 3261?
There is other case: imagine UA
