Thanks for you response. Do you per chance mean "can't put for example port 5060 in the CONTACT header..."? You mentioned Via: header, but I thought the Via header should have the actual source port for responses of the same transaction. For TCP it seems redundant to put source port in the Via header, since responses should come back on the same socket.
I presume Contact: header should have TCP/TLS port that we are listening on for subsequent requests that use a new TCP connection (and not TCP source port of the current TCP connection). However, I presume it is harmless to put TCP source port of current socket in the Via header. Thanks, -Russ On Nov 10, 2006, at 12:17 AM, Fredrik Thulin wrote: > Russ Daigle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ... >> In the Via and Contact headers, for UDP I would always put the >> configured source port of my UDP socket. For TCP/TLS, should I do >> the same of putting my ephemeral source port number of the current >> socket that I am sending the request on? >> >> My guess is that people will say I should put the socket source port >> in the Via header, and the Contact header should have the port that >> I'm listening on for new TCP/TLS connection requests. However, I >> currently don't have a listening socket where I'm waiting for new >> incoming requests, as I expect all communication to use the same >> socket. (We are a test product that tries to break SIP stacks.) > > Ýou can't put for example port 5060 in the Via header if you don't > listen for incoming connections on that port (which you say you > don't). > > You must therefor put the socket source port in there, or include > an ";rport" parameter, which will cause the proxy to fill in the > source port for you (if it supports RFC3581, Symmetric Response > Routing). > > /Fredrik > _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
