What's the best OpenSource SoftPhone? What's the best nonOS sp?
Thanks, Erik Ebright Pratt Institute Net Tech eeeb.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Send Sip-implementors mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > >To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors >or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >You can reach the person managing the list at > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >than "Re: Contents of Sip-implementors digest..." > > >Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Repeated Headers problem (Manikarnike Sridhar-Q16946) > 2. Re: Multi homed Proxy (Kedar Karmarkar) > 3. Re: Redirected messages and Route headers (Dale R. Worley) > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Message: 1 >Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 20:30:47 +0800 >From: "Manikarnike Sridhar-Q16946" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] Repeated Headers problem >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[email protected]> >Message-ID: > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > >Per draft-ietf-sipping-torture-tests-09.txt, section 3.3.8, 400 Bad >request needs to be sent. > >Regards, >Sridhar > > > > > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf >>Of Manjunath Warad >>Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 5:35 PM >>To: [email protected] >>Subject: [Sip-implementors] Repeated Headers problem >> >> >>Hi All, >> In case of repeated headers are present in the >>request/response then what must be the behaviour of the >>receiving entity(UA/Proxy)? >> For e.g., >> >> INVITE sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] SIP/2.0 >> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP pc33.atlanta.com;branch=z9hG4bKnashds8 >> To: Bob <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> From: Alice <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;tag=1234575684 >> From: Alice <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;tag=1928301774 >> Call-ID: a84b4c76e66710 >> CSeq: 314159 INVITE >> Max-Forwards: 70 >> Contact: <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Content-Type: application/pkcs7-mime; >>smime-type=enveloped-data; >> name=smime.p7m >> Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=smime.p7m >> handling=required >> >> >>Please let me know the behaviour along with some supported >>statements in the RFC. >> >>Rgds, >>Manju >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Sip-implementors mailing list >>[email protected] >>https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listin> fo/sip-implementors >> >> >> > > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 2 >Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 09:18:16 -0400 >From: "Kedar Karmarkar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] Multi homed Proxy >To: "Niranjan Gopalakrishnan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Cc: [email protected] >Message-ID: > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > >Perhaps there is a separation of functionality like secure >access/authentication provided in the external proxy which is not required >for the internal proxy to make calls within the local domain which can be >handled by seperating the functionality into two proxies, but also supports >a "feature" which can run both proxies in a single instance? > >On 3/31/06, Niranjan Gopalakrishnan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>Im working with an implementation of a Multi homed proxy - uses 2 >>interfaces, I presume one external and one internal. >>On receiving a request on one interface, it forwards it to itself on the >>destination interface, eventually adding itself twice in the >>Record-Route header (with r2 parameter) before forwarding the request. >>Response is processed similarly. >> >>Why is such a behaviour required? If this is to seperate the netowrk >>topology (external, internal) the same can be achieved by an IP gateway. >> >>I am sure there is only one instance of the Proxy running on the host. >> >>This behaviour is not affecting our functionality. But I need to >>understand the reason behind it. >> >>Any pointers appreciated. >> >>Thanks. >>Niranjan Gopalakrishnan >>Senior Engineer, Call Control, Veraz Networks. >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Sip-implementors mailing list >>[email protected] >>https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors >> >> >> > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 3 >Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2006 10:03:01 -0400 >From: "Dale R. Worley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] Redirected messages and Route headers >To: Sip-Implementors <[email protected]> >Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Content-Type: text/plain > >On Mon, 2006-04-03 at 11:09 +0300, Fortinsky Michael wrote: > > >>I have a question related to redirection and Route headers. >>Assume the following scenario: >>- UA sends out an INVITE containing Route headers >>- UA receives a 3xx response with new contact information >>- UA will now send a new INVITE to the new contact >> >>What Route headers should the new INVITE contain? >>Should it include the same Route headers as in the original INVITE? >>Should it just forget about the original Route headers? >> >> > >Presumably, the Route headers in the original INVITE describe how to get >to its request-URI, so they are not relevant to the new INVITE. The >exception would be if the route headers in the original INVITE were >added due to some general policy regarding how to route INVITEs, and if >that policy applies to the new request-URI as well. > >Dale > >--- >interop.pingtel.com -- the public SIP phone interoperability test server > > > >------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >Sip-implementors mailing list >[email protected] >https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors > > >End of Sip-implementors Digest, Vol 37, Issue 4 >*********************************************** > > > _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
