Hi, Adding a port to the existing parameter would not be backwards compatible. This idea has been suggested, but by using an "rport" parameter, as described in the internet-draft:
http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sip-nat-01.txt There is also the issue that SIP is not required to be symmetric (i.e. The port number I send from does not have to match what is indicated in the Via). The sending element indicates support for rport and symmetric transport by including rport without a value. The receiving element can then insert the observed port# in the rport parameter and the response can be sent to that port. See the draft for all the details. cheers, (-:bob Robert F. Penfield Chief Software Architect Acme Packet, Inc. 130 New Boston Street Woburn, MA 01801 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christian Stredicke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 5:57 AM Subject: [Sip-implementors] received parameter in Via header > Hi, > > the received parameter in the Via header does not include a port value. > > My proposal would be allowing to add a port value there as well > (separated by colon), so that the proxy is able to return it to that > address and port. > > NOTIFY [EMAIL PROTECTED] SIP/2.0 > Via: SIP/2.0/UDP anyone.acme.com;received=123.21.32.53:21323 > > Wouldn't that make sense? It would be helpful in returning messages back > to the sender, even if it is behind NAT. > > Or is it so that this causes trouble with existing equipment that sends > messages from a port where it cannot receive anything? > > > Christian > > _______________________________________________ > Sip-implementors mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors > _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
