Olivier wrote: > Hi, > > I've seen some hardphones or Softswitchs now support this sip.instance > feature : > http://www.softarmor.com/wgdb/docs/draft-jennings-sipping-instance-id-01.txt > > I don't really see any convincing use of this draft but I would be > curious to share thoughts on it. > > Cheers > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ We see similar things a lot from X-Lite (although their implementation is somewhat different and has, in the past, been broken) -- using rinstance or some such. The IDEA is sound to a point. It's useful to be able to have an identifier with the UA to determine which UA is which for purposes of differentiation if people are logging in multiple times with the same username (something Asterisk doesn't allow).
It's usually handled with simple registration parameters using IP/port combinations as differentiators, but if you're running a symmetric NAT, that may be misleading or even non-functional. The instance COULD act as an additional identifier to help clarify those situations on the SIP side (as opposed to just the RTP side). I do NOT, however, feel that such an identifier need last through reboots or even be semi-permanent in any way. It's logically nice to have a separation of instances of the same IP's clients (some of our users log in multiple times from multiple machines from the same IP) for programmatic purposes perhaps, but on a reboot, a new mapping should and would be sent via the REGISTER request, and so keeping this data across UA reboots seems.... unnecessary. And likely a security risk. Where are you seeing this crop up? N. _______________________________________________ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- AstriCon 2008 - September 22 - 25 Phoenix, Arizona Register Now: http://www.astricon.net asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
