One thing I am still not clear if 3261 specifies clearly that the contact address in the response has to be the same (in literal sense) as the contact address in the registration request. Is the public address corresponding to a private address (in NAT environment) considered equivalent?
Sibon Barman| P2P Business Unit | Communication Appliances Division | Avaya Canada Corp. | 1135 Innovation Drive, Suite 100 | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K2K 3G7 | phone: +1.613.592.4343 ext 248 | fax: +1.613.592.5262| [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 10:55 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] Registration request with private address and response with public address From: Paul Kyzivat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> If the SBC is going to translate the Contact in the request, then it also ought to back translate the Contact in the response. It is a bit much to expect UAs to implement workarounds MITM attacks by SBCs. Not to mention that such UAs make implementing a working SBE nearly impossible. The one good thing about "transparent SBEs" is that their responsibilities are well-defined. Satisfying those responsibilities is difficult, but success and failure are well-defined. Once the other components start expecting something other than RFC 3261 behavior at their interfaces, how can the SBE implementor even know what to do? Dale _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
