19 Mar
2003
19 Mar
'03
8:25 a.m.
Hi,
When we have a situation in which a PC changes IP addresses (like on
dialup), we end up with multiple registrations (see below). Is it possible
to configure SER so that it only has the latest registration?
[root@maui ser]# serctl ul show rvilla
<sip:rvilla@200.58.193.72:5060;transport=udp>;q=0.00;expires=2773
<sip:rvilla@200.58.203.236:5060;transport=udp>;q=0.00;expires=3194
<sip:rvilla@200.58.203.61:5060;transport=udp>;q=0.00;expires=3544
On a related note, the registrar README says:
"Name: lookup
Params: table - Name of table that should be used for the lookup
Desc: The functions extracts username from Request-URI and tries to find all
contacts
for the username in usrloc. If there are no such contacts, -1 will be
returned.
If there are such contacts, Request-URI will be overwritten with the contact
that
has the highest q value and optionally the rest will be appended to the
message
(depending on append_branches parameter value)."
....but as you can see all 3 contacts have the same "q value" (whatever that
stands for).
How does one resolve such an issue?
Thanks,
Ricardo
19 Mar
19 Mar
4:51 p.m.
Hello,
registrar has "append_branches" parameter, if set to 0 (default is 1)
then registrar will use only contact with the highest q value. I created
a patch for 0.8.10 which orders contacts according to the modification
time so that only the most recently update contact will be used. What
version of ser do you use ?
regards, Jan.
On 19-03 00:25, Ricardo Villa wrote:
Hi,
When we have a situation in which a PC changes IP addresses (like on
dialup), we end up with multiple registrations (see below). Is it possible
to configure SER so that it only has the latest registration?
[root@maui ser]# serctl ul show rvilla
<sip:rvilla@200.58.193.72:5060;transport=udp>;q=0.00;expires=2773
<sip:rvilla@200.58.203.236:5060;transport=udp>;q=0.00;expires=3194
<sip:rvilla@200.58.203.61:5060;transport=udp>;q=0.00;expires=3544
On a related note, the registrar README says:
"Name: lookup
Params: table - Name of table that should be used for the lookup
Desc: The functions extracts username from Request-URI and tries to find all
contacts
for the username in usrloc. If there are no such contacts, -1 will be
returned.
If there are such contacts, Request-URI will be overwritten with the contact
that
has the highest q value and optionally the rest will be appended to the
message
(depending on append_branches parameter value)."
....but as you can see all 3 contacts have the same "q value" (whatever that
stands for).
How does one resolve such an issue?
Thanks,
Ricardo
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
5:25 p.m.
Hi Jan,
I use 0.8.10, so from what you are saying, SER will only use the bottom
contact in my example?
[root@maui ser]# serctl ul show rvilla
<sip:rvilla@200.58.193.72:5060;transport=udp>;q=0.00;expires=2773
<sip:rvilla@200.58.203.236:5060;transport=udp>;q=0.00;expires=3194
<sip:rvilla@200.58.203.61:5060;transport=udp>;q=0.00;expires=3544
And regarding the "q value", what is it? And why are they all the same?
Since they are all the same, I fail to miss the point: "then registrar will
use only contact with the highest q value".
And if if were to add the "append_branches" in the ser.cfg file, where
exactly would I put it?
Thanks,
Ricardo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jan Janak" <jan(a)iptel.org>
To: "Ricardo Villa" <ricvil(a)epm.net.co>
Cc: <serusers(a)lists.iptel.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 8:51 AM
Subject: Re: [Serusers] Multiple Registrations
8:44 p.m.
Jan,
Mine works as you explained.
E
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jan Janak" <jan(a)iptel.org>
To: "Ricardo Villa" <ricvil(a)epm.net.co>
Cc: <serusers(a)lists.iptel.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 3:51 PM
Subject: Re: [Serusers] Multiple Registrations
5:11 p.m.
Ricardo Villa writes:
When we have a situation in which a PC changes IP addresses (like on
dialup), we end up with multiple registrations (see below). Is it possible
to configure SER so that it only has the latest registration?
it might be possible to configure ser that way, but the problem may also
be with you or your sip ua.
you should namely exit your sip ua before you logout your dialup or
whatever internet access. at exit the ua should send a register request
with header field:
Expires: 0
and that will remove the registration from ser. if your ua doesn't send
that kind of register request at exit, then there is a bug in it, which
should be fixed rather than removing forking capability from your ser.
-- juha
5:30 p.m.
Hi Juha,
You are absolutely right about "exiting" the UA agent (our UA agent works
fine). But not everybody in the network is going to go through the menu and
click "log out" every time. Some people will close it, or some people might
drop their dial-up connection and redial again right away.
I am just trying to eliminate this scenario as a potential problem.
Thanks,
Ricardo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Juha Heinanen" <jh(a)lohi.eng.song.fi>
To: "Ricardo Villa" <ricvil(a)epm.net.co>
Cc: <serusers(a)lists.iptel.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 9:11 AM
Subject: [Serusers] Multiple Registrations
Ricardo Villa writes:
>
> When we have a situation in which a PC changes IP addresses (like on
> dialup), we end up with multiple registrations (see below). Is it
possible
to configure
SER so that it only has the latest registration?
it might be possible to configure ser that way, but the problem may also
be with you or your sip ua.
you should namely exit your sip ua before you logout your dialup or
whatever internet access. at exit the ua should send a register request
with header field:
Expires: 0
and that will remove the registration from ser. if your ua doesn't send
that kind of register request at exit, then there is a bug in it, which
should be fixed rather than removing forking capability from your ser.
-- juha
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
6:02 p.m.
Ricardo Villa writes:
You are absolutely right about "exiting"
the UA agent (our UA agent works
fine). But not everybody in the network is going to go through the menu and
click "log out" every time. Some people will close it, or some people might
drop their dial-up connection and redial again right away.
even if you close the UA window, it should still unregister. droping of
connection wihtout the user doing so is of course another thing that
very little can be done about.
I am just trying to eliminate this scenario as a
potential problem.
but at the same time you are removing an extremely valuable feature of
sip, i.e., allowing several parallel registrations and forking to them.
may be i didn't understod what the problem actually is. if i have two
registrations for the same uri and one of them is not valid anymore,
then, due to forking, the valid one will receive the requests anyhow.
-- juha
11:01 p.m.
I agree with Juha. In my opinion possibility to register and use more
than one contact is very nice feature of SIP and it shouldn't be restricted
this way.
It is also possible that user agents will register more than one
contacts transparently, they may use different port numbers for presence
and instant messaging (SUBSCRIBE,NOTIFY,MESSAGE) and different port
number for voice (INVITE, ACK, BYE). Restricting ser to just one contact
will prohibit such user agents because our registrar doesn't support
callee preferencies yet. On the other hand right now I am not aware of
any user agents using multiple ports this way.
Also user agents capabable of simultaneous use of TCP and UDP might want
to register 2 contacts, one for UDP and one for TCP transport.
If I understood your email correctly, the only problem with unregistered
user agents when IP address changes is that another user agent (which
was assigned IP address of the previously unregistered user agent) will
receive calls not targeted to him. Something like this:
1) UA1 with IP1 registers
2) hang up, UA1 is still registered with IP1
3) another user dials in, gets previsously freed IP1 and starts UA2
4) UA2 registers (with different address of record)
5) UA3 invites UA1 (which is offline already) but the INVITE will be
sent to UA2 (which has now IP1)
I don't know if there is any time window in which a previsously assigned
IP address must not be reassigned, but I assume no.
Such a situation cannot be completely avoided, but the probability that
something like this will happen can be significantly decreased by using
reasonably short expires intervals. Morover I could extend registrar to
either: 1) refuse contacts with too long expires parameter
2) force shorter expires value if the value provided by user
agent is too long.
Shorter expires value will, of course, increase traffic.
What do you think ? Maybe limited expires value could solve your
problem ?
In regards to q parameter: q is preference of contacts (see RFC3261).
This parameter is provided by user agents when registering contacts and
can be assigned value from 0.00 to 1.00, where 0 means the lowest and 1
the highest priority among contacts registered for a single address of
record.
Jan.
On 19-03 17:02, Juha Heinanen wrote:
Ricardo Villa writes:
You are absolutely right about
"exiting" the UA agent (our UA agent works
fine). But not everybody in the network is going to go through the menu and
click "log out" every time. Some people will close it, or some people might
drop their dial-up connection and redial again right away.
even if you close the UA window, it should still unregister. droping of
connection wihtout the user doing so is of course another thing that
very little can be done about.
I am just trying to eliminate this scenario as a
potential problem.
but at the same time you are removing an extremely valuable feature of
sip, i.e., allowing several parallel registrations and forking to them.
may be i didn't understod what the problem actually is. if i have two
registrations for the same uri and one of them is not valid anymore,
then, due to forking, the valid one will receive the requests anyhow.
-- juha
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers 
11:19 p.m.
Jan,
I agree hat the feature is very useful. However, from
an ISPs point of view, it may be desireable to restrict it.
Most of our customers are only permitted one sip phone
connection. Same sort of thing with dialup accounts, it is possible for
radius to authenticate multiple connections, but, an ISP may only
wish to allow one dialup connection...this was difficult to do with
radius for quite a long time. I know I would like to restrict my
customers to just one connection.
Is it possible to call a deregistration function when the register
happens?
Perhaps a delete(id) followed by the save(id). In this way, it would be
guaranteed to only have one registration by a single customer. E.g.:
If(method=="REGISTER")
{
if(!delete("location"))
{
log("ID was not already registered, ignoring");
};
if(!save("location"))
{
sl_reply_error();
};
};
Regards,
---greg
Greg Fausak
PS. Is anyone going to San Jose (VON) the beginning of April?
-----Original Message-----
From: serusers-admin(a)lists.iptel.org
[mailto:serusers-admin@lists.iptel.org] On Behalf Of Jan Janak
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 2:02 PM
To: Juha Heinanen
Cc: Ricardo Villa; serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
Subject: Re: [Serusers] Multiple Registrations
I agree with Juha. In my opinion possibility to register and use more
than one contact is very nice feature of SIP and it shouldn't
be restricted
this way.
It is also possible that user agents will register more than one
contacts transparently, they may use different port numbers
for presence
and instant messaging (SUBSCRIBE,NOTIFY,MESSAGE) and different port
number for voice (INVITE, ACK, BYE). Restricting ser to just
one contact
will prohibit such user agents because our registrar doesn't support
callee preferencies yet. On the other hand right now I am not aware of
any user agents using multiple ports this way.
Also user agents capabable of simultaneous use of TCP and UDP
might want
to register 2 contacts, one for UDP and one for TCP transport.
If I understood your email correctly, the only problem with
unregistered
user agents when IP address changes is that another user agent (which
was assigned IP address of the previously unregistered user
agent) will
receive calls not targeted to him. Something like this:
1) UA1 with IP1 registers
2) hang up, UA1 is still registered with IP1
3) another user dials in, gets previsously freed IP1 and starts UA2
4) UA2 registers (with different address of record)
5) UA3 invites UA1 (which is offline already) but the INVITE will be
sent to UA2 (which has now IP1)
I don't know if there is any time window in which a
previsously assigned
IP address must not be reassigned, but I assume no.
Such a situation cannot be completely avoided, but the
probability that
something like this will happen can be significantly
decreased by using
reasonably short expires intervals. Morover I could extend
registrar to
either: 1) refuse contacts with too long expires parameter
2) force shorter expires value if the value provided by user
agent is too long.
Shorter expires value will, of course, increase traffic.
What do you think ? Maybe limited expires value could solve your
problem ?
In regards to q parameter: q is preference of contacts (see RFC3261).
This parameter is provided by user agents when registering
contacts and
can be assigned value from 0.00 to 1.00, where 0 means the
lowest and 1
the highest priority among contacts registered for a single address of
record.
Jan.
On 19-03 17:02, Juha Heinanen wrote:
unregister. droping of
Ricardo Villa writes:
> You are absolutely right about "exiting" the UA agent
(our UA
agent works
> fine). But not everybody in the network is
going to go
through the menu and
> click "log out" every time. Some
people will close it,
or some people might
drop
their dial-up connection and redial again right away.
even if you close the UA window, it should still connection wihtout the user doing so is of course
another thing that
very little can be done about.
> I am just trying to eliminate this scenario as a
potential problem.
but at the same time you are removing an extremely valuable
feature of
sip, i.e., allowing several parallel
registrations and
forking to them.
may be i didn't understod what the problem actually is. if
i have two
registrations for the same uri and one of them is
not valid anymore,
then, due to forking, the valid one will receive the
requests anyhow.
-- juha
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
20 Mar
20 Mar
12:17 a.m.
Greg,
thanks for the info, as I have no ISP experience, it is hard for me to
understand why such restriction is benefical for ISPs. Some comments are
inline, I would appreciate if you could give me more hints. I've sent a
patch that implements the restriction, but honestly I still don't understand
motivation for the restriction.
On 19-03 14:19, Greg Fausak wrote:
Jan,
I agree hat the feature is very useful. However, from
an ISPs point of view, it may be desireable to restrict it.
Why is it desirable ? Why, for example, your costumers are not allowed
to have MS Messenger for IM&P and some kind of SIP hardphone for voice
sessions ?
Most of our customers are only permitted one sip
phone
connection. Same sort of thing with dialup accounts, it is possible for
radius to authenticate multiple connections, but, an ISP may only
wish to allow one dialup connection...this was difficult to do with
radius for quite a long time. I know I would like to restrict my
customers to just one connection.
I think that dialup account is something completely different. I
understand that ISPs want to restrict costumers to just one
connection, but on top of the single connection you can have several
simultaneous SIP sessions running. You are limited by the available
bandwith only. I think that you don't restrict users to just one FTP
connection at a time, do you ? Why do you want to restrict SIP this way ?
Is it possible to call a deregistration function when
the register
happens?
No, there is no such function, see the patch that I sent a while ago.
regards, Jan.
1:01 a.m.
Greg,
thanks for the info, as I have no ISP experience, it is hard for me to
understand why such restriction is benefical for ISPs. Some
comments are
inline, I would appreciate if you could give me more hints.
I've sent a
patch that implements the restriction, but honestly I still
don't understand
motivation for the restriction.
On 19-03 14:19, Greg Fausak wrote:
Jan,
I agree with you, it is desirable to have this functionality.
However, from an ISP point of view I want to charge customers
for it! 2 SIP devices will take twice the support as one SIP
device. I can't being to tell you how many support calls we get when
someone has two POP email clients reading the same POP
server. An ISP sells service. If the customer want's the 'multiple
phones share the same SIP proxy account' service then it is appropriate
to charge for it, because we have to support it!
Also, 911 is an issue. If we are doing emergency delivery for
a 911 call we need to know that it comes from the phone at
the location that needs the help.
I'm sure there are other reasons. Certainly it doesn't hurt anything to
provide the ability to limit to 1 registrant, no matter what the reason?
Jan,
I agree hat the feature is very useful. However, from
an ISPs point of view, it may be desireable to restrict it.
Why is it desirable ? Why, for example, your costumers are
not allowed
to have MS Messenger for IM&P and some kind of SIP
hardphone for voice
sessions ?
Most of our
customers are only permitted one sip phone
connection. Same sort of thing with dialup accounts, it is
possible for
radius to authenticate multiple connections, but,
an ISP may only
wish to allow one dialup connection...this was difficult to do with
radius for quite a long time. I know I would like to restrict my
customers to just one connection.
I think that dialup account is something completely different. I
understand that ISPs want to restrict costumers to just one
connection, but on top of the single connection you can have several
simultaneous SIP sessions running. You are limited by the available
bandwith only. I think that you don't restrict users to
just one FTP
connection at a time, do you ? Why do you want to restrict
SIP this way ? Is it possible to call a deregistration function
when the register
happens?
No, there is no such function, see the patch that I sent a
while ago.
regards, Jan.
1:16 a.m.
Hello Greg,
thanks for the clarification.
Anyway, if these restrictions cannot be made it
doesn't matter to
me too much. However, if it was possible for me to restrict the
customer
to just one SIP phone connection I would definitely do so. I think it
Is a good idea...but that is just my opinion :-)
Just apply the patch and set the parameter as described in the email
and you will be able to do the restriction.
regards, Jan.
19 Mar
19 Mar
11:40 p.m.
Hi Jan,
Regarding the "q" parameter, thank you for the explanation.
Regarding my "potential" problem, I was thinking that if I could use the
"serctl ul rm" command:
serctl ul rm <username> ................... delete user's UsrLoc entries
to delete the oldest duplicate contact, it would be great since I could
write a Perl script for it. But the "serctl ul rm" command does not do
anything if we append the ipaddress to the username.
[root@maui sip]# serctl ul show pperez
<sip:pperez@192.168.0.111:5060;transport=udp>;q=0.00;expires=2335
[root@maui sip]# serctl ul rm pperez(a)192.168.0.111
200 user (location, pperez(a)192.168.0.111) deleted
[root@maui sip]# serctl ul show pperez
<sip:pperez@192.168.0.111:5060;transport=udp>;q=0.00;expires=2322
[root@maui sip]#
I think this would be better than modifying the registrar and affect all
other SER users.
Thanks,
Ricardo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jan Janak" <jan(a)iptel.org>
To: "Juha Heinanen" <jh(a)lohi.eng.song.fi>
Cc: "Ricardo Villa" <ricvil(a)epm.net.co>co>; <serusers(a)lists.iptel.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 3:01 PM
Subject: Re: [Serusers] Multiple Registrations
11:59 p.m.
Hello Ricardo,
enclosed find a patch that modifies the registrar so it will be possible
to use just one contact. You will have to use
modparam("registrar", "append_branches", 0) in your script and after
that only the most recently updated/created contact will be used (even if
there are many of them).
Note: if you don't use the modparam, the registrar will still use all
registered contacts.
This should do exactly what you are asking for.
Put the patch in parent directory of ser-0.8.10 and apply it using
patch -p0 < reg-ordering.patch
regards, Jan.
On 19-03 15:40, Ricardo Villa wrote:
Hi Jan,
Regarding the "q" parameter, thank you for the explanation.
Regarding my "potential" problem, I was thinking that if I could use the
"serctl ul rm" command:
serctl ul rm <username> ................... delete user's UsrLoc entries
to delete the oldest duplicate contact, it would be great since I could
write a Perl script for it. But the "serctl ul rm" command does not do
anything if we append the ipaddress to the username.
[root@maui sip]# serctl ul show pperez
<sip:pperez@192.168.0.111:5060;transport=udp>;q=0.00;expires=2335
[root@maui sip]# serctl ul rm pperez(a)192.168.0.111
200 user (location, pperez(a)192.168.0.111) deleted
[root@maui sip]# serctl ul show pperez
<sip:pperez@192.168.0.111:5060;transport=udp>;q=0.00;expires=2322
[root@maui sip]#
I think this would be better than modifying the registrar and affect all
other SER users.
Thanks,
Ricardo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jan Janak" <jan(a)iptel.org>
To: "Juha Heinanen" <jh(a)lohi.eng.song.fi>
Cc: "Ricardo Villa" <ricvil(a)epm.net.co>co>;
<serusers(a)lists.iptel.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 3:01 PM
Subject: Re: [Serusers] Multiple Registrations
20 Mar
20 Mar
2:58 a.m.
Great!
I tried it and it is working as you described it.
I appreciate it.
Regards,
Ricardo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jan Janak" <jan(a)iptel.org>
To: "Ricardo Villa" <ricvil(a)epm.net.co>
Cc: "Juha Heinanen" <jh(a)lohi.eng.song.fi>fi>;
<serusers(a)lists.iptel.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 3:59 PM
Subject: Re: [Serusers] Multiple Registrations
Hello Ricardo,
enclosed find a patch that modifies the registrar so it will be possible
to use just one contact. You will have to use
modparam("registrar", "append_branches", 0) in your script and after
that only the most recently updated/created contact will be used (even if
there are many of them).
Note: if you don't use the modparam, the registrar will still use all
registered contacts.
This should do exactly what you are asking for.
Put the patch in parent directory of ser-0.8.10 and apply it using
patch -p0 < reg-ordering.patch
regards, Jan.
On 19-03 15:40, Ricardo Villa wrote:
Hi Jan,
Regarding the "q" parameter, thank you for the explanation.
Regarding my "potential" problem, I was thinking that if I could use the
"serctl ul rm" command:
serctl ul rm <username> ................... delete user's UsrLoc entries
to delete the oldest duplicate contact, it would be great since I could
write a Perl script for it. But the "serctl ul rm" command does not do
anything if we append the ipaddress to the username.
[root@maui sip]# serctl ul show pperez
<sip:pperez@192.168.0.111:5060;transport=udp>;q=0.00;expires=2335
[root@maui sip]# serctl ul rm pperez(a)192.168.0.111
200 user (location, pperez(a)192.168.0.111) deleted
[root@maui sip]# serctl ul show pperez
<sip:pperez@192.168.0.111:5060;transport=udp>;q=0.00;expires=2322
[root@maui sip]#
I think this would be better than modifying the registrar and affect all
other SER users.
Thanks,
Ricardo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jan Janak" <jan(a)iptel.org>
To: "Juha Heinanen" <jh(a)lohi.eng.song.fi>
Cc: "Ricardo Villa" <ricvil(a)epm.net.co>co>;
<serusers(a)lists.iptel.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 3:01 PM
Subject: Re: [Serusers] Multiple Registrations
21 Mar
21 Mar
10:10 p.m.
At 09:40 PM 3/19/2003, Ricardo Villa wrote:
But the "serctl ul rm" command does not do
anything if we append the ipaddress to the username.
[root@maui sip]# serctl ul show pperez
<sip:pperez@192.168.0.111:5060;transport=udp>;q=0.00;expires=2335
[root@maui sip]# serctl ul rm pperez(a)192.168.0.111
200 user (location, pperez(a)192.168.0.111) deleted
[root@maui sip]# serctl ul show pperez
<sip:pperez@192.168.0.111:5060;transport=udp>;q=0.00;expires=2322
[root@maui sip]#
ul rm removes all contacts for an aor.
[jiri@fox jiri]$ sc ul show jiri
<sip:130.129.141.109:8390>;q=0.00;expires=722
[jiri@fox jiri]$ sc ul rm jiri
200 user (location, jiri) deleted
[jiri@fox jiri]$ sc ul show jiri
404 No registered contacts found
[jiri@fox jiri]$
Through a mistake in usrloc'c fifo, non-existent aors are okayed.
[jiri@fox user_interface]$ sc ul rm jiri(a)bla.com
200 user (location, jiri(a)bla.com) deleted
You wish to use ul_rm_contact to remove a particular contact.
It takes table name, user name and the contact as parameter.
-Jiri
I think this would be better than modifying the
registrar and affect all
other SER users.
Thanks,
Ricardo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jan Janak" <jan(a)iptel.org>
To: "Juha Heinanen" <jh(a)lohi.eng.song.fi>
Cc: "Ricardo Villa" <ricvil(a)epm.net.co>co>; <serusers(a)lists.iptel.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 3:01 PM
Subject: Re: [Serusers] Multiple Registrations
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
--
Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/
19 Mar
19 Mar
6:14 p.m.
Hi Ricardo,
On Wednesday 19 March 2003 06:25, Ricardo Villa wrote:
When we have a situation in which a PC changes IP
addresses (like on
dialup), we end up with multiple registrations (see below). Is it possible
to configure SER so that it only has the latest registration?
as Juha allready stated normaly the UA should unregister.
And to your example i would say this is not normal. If a user contacts every 5
minutes from another IP he should set the expires value in its UA to value so
that nothing goes wrong. I mean in reality i would not expect that some
registers every 5 minutes from another IP. But if the user do it this way he
should set the Expires value maybe to 7 minutes.
And the last choice would be that the UA unregister all previous registered
contacts (for example on startup) and registers its current contact after
this. But this should be an option for user who know what they are doing (for
example an extra button which ask twice before unregister everything).
And at last: the q value gives the user the chance to configure in which
sequence a proxy with forking should try to reach the user at the different
contacts. So the user can configure that the proxy should first try contact a
and after this try contact b because of its higher or lower (i'm currently do
not know how the contacts will be sorted) q value.
Regards
Nils Ohlmeier
7:30 p.m.
Hi Nils,
I agree that my example is not normal behaviour. But out of 100 users, I am
sure, at least one would experience multiple registrations due to dropped
dial-up calls. And modifying the UA agent as per your suggestions is really
beyond my control.
Thanks,
Ricardo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nils Ohlmeier" <nils(a)iptel.org>
To: "Ricardo Villa" <ricvil(a)epm.net.co>co>; <serusers(a)lists.iptel.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 10:14 AM
Subject: Re: [Serusers] Multiple Registrations
every 5
Hi Ricardo,
On Wednesday 19 March 2003 06:25, Ricardo Villa wrote:
> When we have a situation in which a PC changes IP addresses (like on
> dialup), we end up with multiple registrations (see below). Is it
possible
to configure
SER so that it only has the latest registration?
as Juha allready stated normaly the UA should unregister.
And to your example i would say this is not normal. If a user contacts minutes from another IP he should set the expires
value in its UA to value
so
that nothing goes wrong. I mean in reality i would not
expect that some
registers every 5 minutes from another IP. But if the user do it this way
he
should set the Expires value maybe to 7 minutes.
And the last choice would be that the UA unregister all previous
registered
contacts (for example on startup) and registers its
current contact after
this. But this should be an option for user who know what they are doing
(for
example an extra button which ask twice before
unregister everything).
And at last: the q value gives the user the chance to configure in which
sequence a proxy with forking should try to reach the user at the
different
contacts. So the user can configure that the proxy
should first try
contact a
and after this try contact b because of its higher or
lower (i'm currently
do
not know how the contacts will be sorted) q value.
Regards
Nils Ohlmeier
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
7903
days inactive
7905
days old
18 comments
8 participants
participants (8)
-
'Jan Janak' -
Emil -
Greg Fausak -
Jan Janak
-
Jiri Kuthan -
Juha Heinanen -
Nils Ohlmeier -
Ricardo Villa