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
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@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
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@iptel.org To: "Ricardo Villa" ricvil@epm.net.co Cc: serusers@lists.iptel.org Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 8:51 AM Subject: Re: [Serusers] Multiple Registrations
Jan,
Mine works as you explained.
E ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jan Janak" jan@iptel.org To: "Ricardo Villa" ricvil@epm.net.co Cc: serusers@lists.iptel.org Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 3:51 PM Subject: Re: [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
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@lohi.eng.song.fi To: "Ricardo Villa" ricvil@epm.net.co Cc: serusers@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@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
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
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@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
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@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@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:
- UA1 with IP1 registers
- hang up, UA1 is still registered with IP1
- another user dials in, gets previsously freed IP1 and starts UA2
- UA2 registers (with different address of record)
- 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@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
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.
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 ?
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?
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 ?
I believe FTP is also something different. The bottom line is The ISP will get contacted by the customer when the SIP phone line doesn't work. I certainly don't want a 3am phone call from someone that can't get something to work that I didn't sell them.
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 :-)
Thank you, ---greg Greg Fausak
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.
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.
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@192.168.0.111 200 user (location, pperez@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@iptel.org To: "Juha Heinanen" jh@lohi.eng.song.fi Cc: "Ricardo Villa" ricvil@epm.net.co; serusers@lists.iptel.org Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 3:01 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@192.168.0.111 200 user (location, pperez@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@iptel.org To: "Juha Heinanen" jh@lohi.eng.song.fi Cc: "Ricardo Villa" ricvil@epm.net.co; serusers@lists.iptel.org Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 3:01 PM Subject: Re: [Serusers] Multiple Registrations
Great!
I tried it and it is working as you described it.
I appreciate it.
Regards, Ricardo
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jan Janak" jan@iptel.org To: "Ricardo Villa" ricvil@epm.net.co Cc: "Juha Heinanen" jh@lohi.eng.song.fi; serusers@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@192.168.0.111 200 user (location, pperez@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@iptel.org To: "Juha Heinanen" jh@lohi.eng.song.fi Cc: "Ricardo Villa" ricvil@epm.net.co; serusers@lists.iptel.org Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 3:01 PM Subject: Re: [Serusers] Multiple Registrations
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@192.168.0.111 200 user (location, pperez@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@bla.com 200 user (location, jiri@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@iptel.org To: "Juha Heinanen" jh@lohi.eng.song.fi Cc: "Ricardo Villa" ricvil@epm.net.co; serusers@lists.iptel.org Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 3:01 PM Subject: Re: [Serusers] Multiple Registrations
Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
-- Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/
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
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@iptel.org To: "Ricardo Villa" ricvil@epm.net.co; serusers@lists.iptel.org Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 10:14 AM Subject: Re: [Serusers] Multiple Registrations
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 _______________________________________________ Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
-
'Jan Janak' -
Emil -
Greg Fausak -
Jan Janak
-
Jiri Kuthan -
Juha Heinanen -
Nils Ohlmeier -
Ricardo Villa