Hi Klaus, It might be right (from semantic pov) - I suggested this as there are other devices using it for similar purpose, so there is a kind of unwritten convention and the probability to work (to be properly interpreted by other devices) is higher.
BTW, did you know if the RFC recommends/specifies a param for this purpose ? Regards, Bogdan Klaus Darilion wrote: > > > Bogdan-Andrei Iancu schrieb: >> Hi Iñaki, >> >> If I'm not wrong, it's it the "maddr" param what you are looking for. >> Without aiming a bias, I was also evaluating the option to store the >> original contact and to restore it back. > > Technically, I think maddr can be used (and there is some vendor > equipment which uses it) and is probably the easiest way to implement > this feature. > > But I think from the semantic point of view using maddr (=multicast > address) is misleading, as it is defined for usage of SIP with multicast. > > regards > klaus > >> >> Regards, >> Bogdan >> >> Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote: >>> 2008/11/7 Schumann Sebastian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>> >>>> Hi Inaki >>>> >>>> Yes, you are right. Seems my changes work where they should (all >>>> same type of phones where modification has to take place, Contact >>>> header somehow "well-defined") but are not universal. >>>> >>>> I will take your inputs to improve my used functions. Thanks! >>>> >>> I suggest you to study the SIP URI BNF grammar in RFC 3261. It's >>> really complex. >>> >>> Regards. >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Users mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users > _______________________________________________ Users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
