Stephan Steiner ha scritto: > Actually this proxy/registrar (the Linksys SPA9000), does things in a rather > interesting way: > > Here's how the UA registers: > > REGISTER sip:192.168.1.4:6060 SIP/2.0 > Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.1.143:1027;branch=z9hG4bK-15jt0sfyr8xy;rport > From: "Stephan Snom" <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:6060>;tag=hw631v8q8o > To: "Stephan Snom" <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:6060> > Call-ID: 3c26701a4f62-4xco7y4yu87v > CSeq: 2 REGISTER > Max-Forwards: 70 > Contact: > <sip:[EMAIL > PROTECTED]:1027;line=hz1fyz3p>;flow-id=1;q=1.0;+sip.instance="<urn:uuid:6269fe47-3672-4acd-8027-baa939f7a89f>";audio;mobility="fixed";duplex="full";description="snom370";actor="principal";events="dialog";methods="INVITE,ACK,CANCEL,BYE,REFER,OPTIONS,NOTIFY,SUBSCRIBE,PRACK,MESSAGE,INFO" > User-Agent: snom370/7.1.6 > Supported: gruu > Allow-Events: dialog > X-Real-IP: 192.168.1.143 > WWW-Contact: <http://192.168.1.143:80> > WWW-Contact: <https://192.168.1.143:443> > Expires: 600 > Content-Length: 0 > >
A note to the SIP message sent by the phone (not regarding actual issue): is it right to put URI ports in From and To headers? It seems it is not right according to table 1 page 152 of rfc 3261. I ask this because we are currently removing any not-allowed parameters from URI when inserting it in headers using that table. Are we doing right? Thanks. -- Marco Ambu R&D Software Engineering Abbeynet S.p.A. - www.abbeynet.com <http://www.abbeynet.com> phone: +39 070 2339331 <http://www.marco-ambu.sitofono.it> _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
