Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
> 2008/10/13 Paul Kyzivat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> You say you don't consider the connection reuse draft. But you should,
>> because its intent is to clarify behavior that is unclear in 3261.
>
> Well, what I want to know is why all the SIP TCP phones I've tryed
> behind NAT allow receiving requests via the TCP connection open for
> the registration. Those phones don't implement that draft. Maybe this
> is an """estandar""" way to solve NAT using TCP?
Implementations make all sorts of assumptions, not always correct ones,
in the effort to get things to work in some particular case or other.
Sometimes these are clever and valid, sometimes they are misguided or
appropriate only in a very limited set of circumstances.
>> Your first case seems inappropriate because the register request in general
>> does not require that the source be coincident with the contact that is
>> registered.
>
> Of course, the REGISTER Contact could be:
>
> Contact: <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:5060;transport=tcp>
>
> and the UA could send this REGISTER from 192.168.1.58:23456. This is,
> the IP in REGISTER Contact is never the REGISTER originin ip:port.
> This is logical since a SIP TCP clients sends requests from a port
> different than the listening port (5060).ç
I was thinking of something more extreme:
REGISTER sip:example.com
To: sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact: sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact: sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
where the above is sent from other.example.com. In this case
other.example.com is never the right place to send requests intended for
phone1.example.com or phone2.example.com.
Thanks,
Paul
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
