Hi Iñaki!
As usual, you are quite fast to reply when the title says "RFC...
incompliance" ;-)
In fact, I tought I had already fixed this bug... I will have a look ASAP!
-Raphael.
On 04.04.11 11:53, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
2011/4/4 Alekzander Spiridonov<[email protected]>:
It looks like:
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
94.25.111.28:5060;wlsscid=-40d94a935cd12af0;maddr=94.25.111.28;branch=z9hG4bK83c94213c8c76642c50fb7aeb4f89d35
And comes from:
94.25.111.28:54041
Basically that is a non symmetric SIP client (uses a random UDP port
for sending data but expect incoming requests/responses in a fixed
port).
If SEMS replies to 94.25.111.28:54041 then it's a bug. It should reply
to 94.25.111.28:5060.
If the request's Via contained ;rport param then SEMS should fill it
with public source port and send the response to that port, but this
is not the case. So yes, IMHO it's a bug in SEMS.
_______________________________________________
Sems mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/sems
