Russ Daigle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks for you response. > > Do you per chance mean "can't put for example port 5060 in the > CONTACT header..."?
The contact header has no bearing of the routing of responses to requests you send. I thought your question was only about response routing, but no - you should not put something invalid (like a port where you don't listen) in the contact header of the requests you send, if you want requests sent in the other direction to work. > 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. The Via header doesn't have to include a port number. If it does, then the port number should make sense. The Via header _might_ need to include a port number, or the "rport" parameter. > 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. Should be - unless there is a NAT in between you and the party you are testing with, that works in a way that changes the port number. Say that you send the request from port 1234, and a NAT changes that to port 2345 - a response sent to port 1234 would probably not reach you. This is what "rport" is for. /Fredrik _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
