>-----Original Message----- >From: Prasad, Santosh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 1:55 PM >To: Sanjay Sinha (sanjsinh) >Cc: [email protected] >Subject: RE: [Sip-implementors] Adding Bindings rfc3261 sec10.2.1 > >Sanjay, > >Thanks for your quick response. I would also like to know if >registrar should create separate binding when user registers >with different ports but coming from same IP.
Yes. You should also look at the outbound draft: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sip-outbound-05.txt Sanjay > >To explain this better -- if a user has two machine A and B >behind same NAT and tries to register say user "abc" from both >the machine A and B; then from the server side it receives >Registration request from same IP but different ports. Should >there be two separate binding in this case? > >Thanks, >Santosh > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Sanjay Sinha (sanjsinh) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 1:39 PM >To: Prasad, Santosh; [email protected] >Subject: RE: [Sip-implementors] Adding Bindings rfc3261 sec10.2.1 > >I think registrar should create a separate binding when user >register with a different ip address/port combination. > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf >Of Prasad, >>Santosh >>Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 12:12 PM >>To: [email protected] >>Subject: [Sip-implementors] Adding Bindings rfc3261 sec10.2.1 >> >>WRT RFC 3261 sec 10.2.1 Adding Bindings >> >> >> >>My question is should the SIP Registrar create two bindings in the >>database for Registration with same user-id but different IP Port >>combination (IP being in the same subnet or NAT )? >>This is not scenario for forking at multiple AOR. >> >> >> >>The following flow describes an issue whereby calls made to a >user that >>had been logged out from one Machine (IP:Port) as he/she >logged in from >>a different Machine (IP:Port) fails. >>Please see the steps below: >> >>Machine A and B are behind same NAT device >> >>Machine A points to Proxy 1 say EP01 >> >>Machine B points to Proxy 2 say EP02 >> >> >>At time t0 - User 'abc' logs into SIP server (EP01) from Machine 'A'. >> >>At time t1 - User 'abc' logs into SIP server (EP02 )from Machine 'B'. >>At time t2 - The Presence server realizes that this user 'abc' >>is logged in at another location, so the Presence server >indicates user >>'abc' on Machine 'A' to logout informing him that he is logged in at >>another location and the client also will log user out of SIP server. >> >>At time t3 - user 'def' tries to call user 'abc', the call request >>fails. >> >> >> >>This is what I see in DB >> >> >> >>At time t0 there is an entry [EMAIL PROTECTED]:PortA >> >>At time t1 the entry gets updated with [EMAIL PROTECTED]:PortB --> There >>should >>be two bindings as this is a new Registration from different IP:Port >>but (IP being in the same subnet)? >> >>At time t2 there is a request from Machine A to logout >>(De-Register) [EMAIL PROTECTED]:PortA but the SIP Registrar removes >[EMAIL PROTECTED]:PortB >> >>I see from the logs that the application doesn't create new >binding or >>entry in DB when the User 'abc' logs from Machine 'B' (at time t1) it >>overrides the old IP port. So at time instance t2 there is no >entry in >>the database >> >> >> >>But the client is logged in on Machine B and can originate >the call but >>cannot receive any calls. >> >> >> >> >> >>Thanks for your time. >> >> >> >>Regards, >> >>Santosh Prasad >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Sip-implementors mailing list >>[email protected] >>https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors >> > _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
