El Martes, 28 de Octubre de 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió: > From: =?iso-8859-1?q?I=F1aki_Baz_Castillo?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > El Viernes, 24 de Octubre de 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió: > > sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:5060 > > sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:15060 > > sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:25060 > > sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:35060 > > > > In that case, the request-URI of the REGISTER needs to contain the > > proper port number. > > 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. > > You can't depend on that working -- It's never been settled what must > happen if a SIP message arrives at a UAS which isn't the UAS that the > RFC 3263 rules would send it to. It's possible that the UAS will > forward it based on the request-URI. > > It's safer to include the port, if the destination port is not 5060. > > For example Twinkle does it if you set the registrar in a port > different than 5060. > > I wouldn't depend on that working.
Good point. Thanks. -- Iñaki Baz Castillo _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
