" Yes, they should be. The domain part of a URI includes any port number, and xxx:5060 is not equal to xxx (they may or may not go to the same place)."
You are right, now I found the statement in RFC 3261, section 19.1.4. "A URI omitting any component with a default value will not match a URI explicitly containing that component with its default value." ... " Defining sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] to not be equivalent to sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:5060 is a change from RFC 2543." Regards, Gabor -----Original Message----- From: Scott Lawrence [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 09 July 2008 17:14 To: Gabor Paller Cc: Dale Worley; [email protected] Subject: Re: [sipx-users] GJTAPI/sipprovider registration error On Wed, 2008-07-09 at 16:06 +0100, Gabor Paller wrote: > " Now in your case, it looks like your UA is trying to register against > <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:5064> (the To URI), but it's likely > that for one reason or another, the URI in the credentials file is > <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, which is not the same." > > Codewise, GJTAPI SIP provider always includes the local SIP port into > the SIP URI. I removed this behaviour (it is open-source software so it > could be done) and the problem disappeared. > > I still wonder, however, whether sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] and > sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:port should be two separate users. Yes, they should be. The domain part of a URI includes any port number, and xxx:5060 is not equal to xxx (they may or may not go to the same place). -- Scott Lawrence tel:+1.781.229.0533;ext=162 or sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sipXecs project coordinator - SIPfoundry http://www.sipfoundry.org/sipXecs CTO, Voice Solutions - Bluesocket Inc. http://www.bluesocket.com/ http://www.pingtel.com/ _______________________________________________ sipx-users mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-users
