On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 9:04 AM, Scott Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sun, 2008-09-28 at 23:22 +0200, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote: > >> >> Thanks a lot. IMHO is good to make SIP more simple (for example by replying >> always to incoming IP:port in UDP) even if it breaks annoying backaward >> compatibility with old and extrange implementations. Let's move on! ;) > > Ok... tell you what... you change your implementation and explain to > your customers why your product doesn't work with the stuff they've been > using successfully for years. Let us know how that goes... then again, > don't bother - we already know. >
Agree that breaking backwards compatibility is simply unacceptable. There are valid reasons to want to use asymmetric signaling ( for example load balancing and perhaps even to prevent hackers from knowing where responses are bound a-priori). The rport does seem like a hack, however. With STUN, why not just discover your port and use that in the via header of your signaling instead of the rport? I have not come across ITSPs who seem to care about rport. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Sip-implementors mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors -- M. Ranganathan _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
