The 1st problem here is a lacking "ALG" definition (within the sipping & sip
community) IMO.
I would suppose thus that you've the midcom definition in mind (= RFC 3303, §
2.6), which is a SIP-independent, high-level definition.
If you look just at the function of "translation of address informat
Hi,
In case of using reliability of provisional responses, is the following
call-flow valid?
UAC UAS
INVITE (offer) ->
<183 (answer)---
---PRACK (Offer)-->
<-180 Ringing
Hi all,
An excerpt from RFC3261:
Call Stateful: A proxy is call stateful if it retains state for a
dialog from the initiating INVITE to the terminating BYE
request. A call stateful proxy is always transaction stateful,
but the converse is not necessarily tr
Hi,
>From the above responses, I infer that implementation has to go with
the *text*, the implementation given in the RFC is incorrect and the
one given in the errata (that gets referenced from rfc-editor's errata
page) is correct.
Thank You for the clarification offered.
_
Request routing as per To header is not as per spec, pl. see 8.2.2.1 of
rfc 3261.
The initial Request-URI of the message SHOULD be set to the value of
the URI in the To field.
The To header field identifies the original recipient of the request
designated by the user identified in the F
ALG does a lot of SIP message modification. It changes contact, from, via, sdp
and maintains register binding etc. whereas NAT is just IP/port mapping. So ALG
uses NAT for it's functioning. Is it clear now ?
Vipul Rastogi
Engineer, Business Management Team
Telecommunication Network Business
Sams
Hi,
Request_URI is used for routing purposes, hence if any SIP message reaches to
your IP-PBX then it is becoz of R-URI (not becoz of 'TO'). Once message it
reached, now it is upto IP-PBX to decide which field to use to find UAC
(Station as you say). Sometimes ISP s/w sends child ID in R-URI, pa
If record-route is present with top entry as 'lr', then it should be R-URI,
otherwise contact URI (of other party) should be R-URI. At no point R-URI be
proxy URI. Proxys are intermediate entities and R-URI is for end-entity.
I hope I clarified to some extent.
Vipul Rastogi
Engineer, Business Ma
vinodh kumar wrote:
>
> Paul,
>
> Having 0.0.0.0 and port 0 will have any affect on RTCP
Is the above a question, or a statement?
You don't want to use port=0 because that indicates rejection of the
stream. With c=0.0.0.0 you can use any port. And that would mean that
would not get either R
Paul,
Having 0.0.0.0 and port 0 will have any affect on RTCP
I see below statement in RFC 3264.
For sendonly RTP streams, the address and port number
indirectly indicate where the offerer wants to receive RTCP reports.
Unless there is an explicit indication otherwise, reports are sent
vinodh kumar wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> User A and User B is in call. User A puts the call on hold now the music is
> played to User B(Music on hold).
>
> Invite sent from A to B has media marked as sendonly. Is it mandatory to
> have connection IP and port info in SDP sent by A. As the media is sendo
Hi,
User A and User B is in call. User A puts the call on hold now the music is
played to User B(Music on hold).
Invite sent from A to B has media marked as sendonly. Is it mandatory to
have connection IP and port info in SDP sent by A. As the media is sendonly
is it really required to convey
On Tue, 2007-12-04 at 14:39 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>Which of the above implementations is corect? Is there an errata for
>RFC 2617 maintained by ietf.org?
>
> I see at http://skrb.org/ietf/http_errata.html#md5sess_sample the
> text:
>
> The sample implementation of the ca
From: "Mohamed Moideen. T.E" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In RFC 2617, the code for computing H(A1) for Md5-Sess implementations
is given as
...
...
if (stricmp(pszAlg, "md5-sess") == 0) {
MD5Init(&Md5Ctx);
MD5Update(&Md5Ctx, HA1, HASHLEN);
..
..
while the errata present i
From: Arif <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Can someone please explain to me as to what should be put in
Request-URI of a BYE request .SHOULD it be the Proxy Address or the
address from CONTACT of INVITE (start of dialog)..
First, when the dialog was initially created, the "route set" and the
"con
From: =?euc-kr?B?wMy8ur/s?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I am wondering how IP-PBX can handle an incoming INVITE message
that has different Request-URI and To, provided that the IP-PBX is
able to receive the both 2 DID numbers. My Scenario is this.
The request-URI is what is used to route the
I agree. In general the To-URI isn't useful for *anything*.
Paul
Sanjay Sinha (sanjsinh) wrote:
> Request-uri number
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
>> Behalf Of SungWoo Lee
>> Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 12:04 AM
>> To:
Yes, any proxy can add a record-route header.
Regards,
Attila
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Mohammed Pakkir Mydeen, TLS-Chennai
Sent: Tue 04/12/2007 15:34
To: sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
Subject: [Sip-implementors] Can a statless proxy
All
Can a stateless proxy add Record-Route Header?
Thanks
Mohammed
DISCLAIMER:
---
The contents of this e-mail and any attachment(s) are confidential and intended
fo
Request-uri number
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
>Behalf Of SungWoo Lee
>Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 12:04 AM
>To: Sanjay Sinha (sanjsinh)
>Cc: sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
>Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] To and Request-URI
>
Hi All,
Both NAT and ALG done the process of mapping Private Address to
public Address. Then what is the exact difference in behavior.
Thanks in advance
Regards,
NithyaKumar.R | Huawei technologies ,bangalore
This e-mail and attachments contain confidential informa
> Can someone please explain to me as to what should be put in
> Request-URI of a BYE request .SHOULD it be the Proxy Address
> or the address from CONTACT of INVITE (start of dialog)..
The answer is within rfc3261's subsections of 16.12. It depends upon
the presences of the "lr" parameter.
__
Hi
Can someone please explain to me as to what should be put in Request-URI of a
BYE request .SHOULD it be the Proxy Address or the address from CONTACT of
INVITE (start of dialog)..
I am having problem while testing a proxy server where a test client sends an
INVITE with Request-URI of proxy
a
Hi,
In RFC 2617, the code for computing H(A1) for Md5-Sess implementations
is given as
...
...
if (stricmp(pszAlg, "md5-sess") == 0) {
MD5Init(&Md5Ctx);
MD5Update(&Md5Ctx, HA1, HASHLEN);
..
..
while the errata present in
http://skrb.org/ietf/http_errata.html#md5sess_sample gives the
implementatio
24 matches
Mail list logo
