Just to let you know, r14373 woked as expected, with or without reg. -MM
On Sat, Dec 27, 2008 at 5:57 PM, Melcon Moraes <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Dec 27, 2008 at 11:51 AM, Melcon Moraes <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Sat, Dec 27, 2008 at 2:41 AM, M. Ranganathan <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 11:06 PM, M. Ranganathan <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 10:09 PM, M. Ranganathan <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 6:48 PM, Arnaldo de Moraes Pereira >>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 5:56 PM, Melcon Moraes <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 1:13 AM, M. Ranganathan <[email protected]> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> > On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 7:59 PM, M. Ranganathan <[email protected]> >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> >> On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 4:57 PM, Melcon Moraes <[email protected]> >>>>>>> >> wrote: >>> >>>> Arnaldo, you have correctly identified the problem. What I was >>>> describing above is what happens for INVITEs that originate from >>>> within sipx. However, in this case you have the INVITE coming into >>>> sipxbridge from the ITSP side. >>>> >>>> Looking through your trace file, sipxbridge sees of an inbound request >>>> from the "ITSP" (in your case you do not really have an ITSP). >>>> Unfortunately, here I cannot ITSP account for this request. I have no >>>> a-priori idea of where the request originated from and hence I have to >>>> default to to using a global address. This is the mode of behavior >>>> that ITSPs generally expect. Those that support REGISTER use private >>>> addressing to identify that a request originated from behind a NAT. In >>>> this case, I have the address of the ITSP and can hence match it to >>>> subsequent inbound requests. In your case, you do not requre a >>>> REGISTER. Then out of the blue I see a request from you and have no >>>> idea what "ITSP" that came from so I default to the global addressing >>>> scheme. >>>> >>>> If you want to use private addressing I suggest you add a dummy >>>> Registrar to your "ITSP". This will enable me to identify subsequent >>>> requests as belonging to that ITSP. Off hand that would be the >>>> simplest thing to do. >>>> >>>> >>>> Ranga >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> M. Ranganathan >>>> >>> >>> >>> Actually this analysis of mine is not quite right in this case. >>> Looking at your sipxbridge.xml file and your signaling, you have set >>> it up using all direct addresses so that it can indeed be identified. >>> I simply had not considered the case where you have no registration >>> but still want private signaling. I will admit I have never seen an >>> ITSP need such signaling but in theory it is possible. >>> >>> I made a fix in the code to accommodate this case and committed >>> something. Please try r14373 >>> >>> Ranga >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> M. Ranganathan >>> >> >> Very nice, Ranga. >> >> Regarding the REGISTER, I think I tried before with it and got the >> same results. Let me check that and post it back in here. >> >> After that, I'll try your last changes and see how it goes. >> >> Thanks >> >> -MM >> > > False alarm Ranga. > > I did the tests again with r14285 and r14372 registering with my > "ITSP" and both worked as you described regarding Account > identification. > > Now it is time to go for r14373, which I'm pretty sure will work both ways. > > Thanks again. > > -MM > _______________________________________________ sipx-dev mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev
