Hi all, Thanks for all your responses, I think we have what we need now. Cheers Steve
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Iñaki Baz Castillo Sent: 24 October 2008 18:31 To: sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] REGISTER R-URI with port parameter El Viernes, 24 de Octubre de 2008, Alex Balashov escribió: > > Well, not totally needed. A UA could construct a REGISTER like this: > > > > REGISTER sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] SIP/2.0 > > > > and sent it to host:15060. > > > > For example Twinkle does it if you set the registrar in a port > > different than 5060. > > So, is it definitively needed or not? > > If the transport-layer destination port of the request is > non-canonical, should the port appear in the RURI? The point is: You can do the routing based on the SIP data (Route and RURI) or you can send a request wherever you want, regardless of the SIP request data. A load balancer proxy could route requests to a proxy/gateway regardless of the RURI or Route headers without changing them. Since the RURI can mean the way a request was routed to the registrar, if the registrar is listening in 5080 it should allow a RURI with port 5080. But this is not required, and the UAC could send: REGISTER sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] SIP/2.0 to domain:5080 with no problem. This would occur if the UA has an outbound proxy set or a registrar set in domain:5080. -- Iñaki Baz Castillo _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK Registration No: 1397386 (Wales) P Please consider the environment and don't print this e-mail unless you really need to _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
