Is it possible to forward this thread to the ekiga.net administrator and ask for his/her comment?
Best, Antonio On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 11:56:27 +0200 Jānis Rukšāns <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi > > On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 11:14 AM, Eugen Dedu > <[email protected]> wrote: > > [email protected] wrote: > >> Thank you for your prompt answer, Eugen. > >> Is this behaviour of ekiga.net specified by the standard or is it a choice > >> that the standard leaves to the server and client designers? > > > > Since there was a post in the mailing list about another SIP server > > which does not need NAT (so it uses private addresses in Contact field), > > I am pretty sure that it is a choice by ekiga.net administrator, but I > > do not know the reason and details. > > I think it's perfectly sound to reject REGISTER requests with private > addresses in Contact field. At least for INVITEs etc RFC3261 requires > that the contact is reachable from anywhere. However, Section 10.3 > states that the "registrar MUST not generate 6xx responses." Which is > what ekiga.net does. Also, the second REGISTER with public IP in > contact but private IP in Via should succeed - there is nothing in the > standard that prohibits private IPs in Via (and there's received and > rport parameters for sending back responses). > > -- > Ian > _______________________________________________ > ekiga-list mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/ekiga-list -- <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ ekiga-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/ekiga-list
