On Thu, 2005-11-17 at 09:37 -0500, Paul Kyzivat wrote: > I guess people can implement as they wish, but that sounds like a bad > implementation to me. There is nothing illegal, according to 3261, if > two UAs (using different callids of course) keep doing registrations > that overwrite the same contact address. In that case there is no reason > to retain a record of the older registration.
Yes, it was a weakness of the implementation, enhanced by a strange operating environment that made the situation much worse. And in the interval after the re-registration had been made, but before the first one expired, there were two registrations for the same AOR (and both gave the same contact). Which isn't too troublesome, but is messy. The whole point of the Call-Id for registrations is so that the registrar can tell if a REGISTER is entirely new or just updating a previous registration, and things work better if it can tell that. Dale _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
