23 Jan
2006
23 Jan
'06
2 p.m.
Hi,
indeed, if received uri is set, usrloc returns it received as contact
uri. Again, that's so due simplicity reasons.
On the other hand, an uri without username is a compliant SIP URI
(according to RFC).
I see no reasons for the TO to be rejected in this format.
Regards,
Bogdan
Glenn Dalgliesh wrote:
Well actually the UA registers correctly and is
reachable but natping seems
to built the To hdr from the received field of the location table which only
has source ip and port of the registered packet and not the username
Exmample of locations table entry:
Username domain contact
2120051099 sip:2120051099@172.16.1.1:5060
received
sip:111.16.187.102:5060
The resulting natping packet from this would be
U 2006/01/20 16:27:10.410848 111.15.13.67:5060 -> 111.16.187.102:5060
/OPTIONS sip:111.16.187.102:5060 SIP/2.0./
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 111.15.13.67:5060;branch=0.
From: sip:ping@intervoz.com.br;tag=ec30e9b7.
To: sip:111.16.187.102:5060.
Call-ID: b3fdcfa3-71a82db5-445151(a)111.15.13.67.
CSeq: 1 OPTIONS.
Content-Length: 0.
As you can see if appears to use the received field.
-----Original Message-----
From: Bogdan-Andrei Iancu [mailto:bogdan@voice-system.ro]
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 3:44 PM
To: Glenn Dalgliesh
Cc: users(a)openser.org
Subject: Re: [Users] nathelper natping OPTIONS packets formated to not get
reply?
Hi Glenn,
nathelper, when building the OPTIONS ping, for To hdr, the registered
contact is used (due simplicity reasons). So the client seams to
register contacts without username. interesting is why isn't it accept
them back :).
regards,
bogdan
Glenn Dalgliesh wrote:
I was looking at packet traces of the OPTIONS
packets generated by
natping and it appears that at least in my implementation of OpenSer
1.0.0 the "To: sip" line has no username which causes many UA's
require in order to respond to the OPTIONS packet. I was wondering if
this was intentional or if it would be possible to change this
behavior or at least make it an configurable option. I think a lot
could be done/determined based on the results of the reply; including
determining if the packet is really reaching the UA. I realize that
some UA's may not support this feature but I think more do than not.
Just my observations/thoughts. Please give me reasons for this being a
good or bad idea..
*Current Packet:*
U 2006/01/20 16:27:10.410848 111.15.13.67:5060 -> 111.16.187.102:5060
/OPTIONS sip:111.16.187.102:5060 SIP/2.0./
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 111.15.13.67:5060;branch=0.
From: sip:ping@intervoz.com.br;tag=ec30e9b7.
To: sip:111.16.187.102:5060.
Call-ID: b3fdcfa3-71a82db5-445151(a)111.15.13.67.
CSeq: 1 OPTIONS.
Content-Length: 0.
*Suggested Packet:*
U 2006/01/20 16:27:10.410848 111.15.13.67:5060 -> 111.16.187.102:5060
/OPTIONS sip:*<username from location table>*@111.16.187.102:5060
SIP/2.0./
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 111.15.13.67:5060;branch=0.
From: sip:ping@intervoz.com.br;tag=ec30e9b7.
To: sip:111.16.187.102:5060.
Call-ID: b3fdcfa3-71a82db5-445151(a)111.15.13.67.
CSeq: 1 OPTIONS.
Content-Length: 0.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
Users(a)openser.org
http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
Users(a)openser.org
http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users