<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40" xmlns:v =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:st1 =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"><HEAD><TITLE>Message</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1491" name=GENERATOR><!--[if !mso]>
<STYLE>v\:* {
BEHAVIOR: url(#default#VML)
}
o\:* {
BEHAVIOR: url(#default#VML)
}
w\:* {
BEHAVIOR: url(#default#VML)
}
.shape {
BEHAVIOR: url(#default#VML)
}
</STYLE>
<![endif]--><o:SmartTagType name="PersonName"
namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"></o:SmartTagType><!--[if !mso]>
<STYLE>st1\:* {
BEHAVIOR: url(#default#ieooui)
}
</STYLE>
<![endif]-->
<STYLE>@font-face {
font-family: Tahoma;
}
@font-face {
font-family: Century Gothic;
}
@page Section1 {size: 8.5in 11.0in; margin: 1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; }
P.MsoNormal {
FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"
}
LI.MsoNormal {
FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"
}
DIV.MsoNormal {
FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"
}
A:link {
COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
SPAN.MsoHyperlink {
COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
A:visited {
COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
SPAN.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {
COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
P {
FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0in; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto
}
SPAN.EmailStyle20 {
COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-style-type: personal-reply
}
DIV.Section1 {
page: Section1
}
</STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY lang=EN-US vLink=blue link=blue>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=749023118-02032005>I'm new to this mailing list. This seems like an
interesting question, so thought would put my 2 cents in:</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=749023118-02032005></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=749023118-02032005>It seems like this is incorrect behavior on SER's
part. SER is entitled to maintain the public IP addresses for the Contact in
it's location service. But, the 200 OK that goes out on the wire to the
end-point should contain the same Contact IP addresses that came in the
REGISTER. </SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=749023118-02032005></SPAN></FONT> </DIV><BR>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B> serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org
[mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org] <B>On Behalf Of </B>Vitaly
Nikolaev<BR><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, March 02, 2005 1:25 PM<BR><B>To:</B> 'Linda
Xiao'; 'Java Rockx'<BR><B>Cc:</B> serusers@lists.iptel.org<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE:
[Serusers] Claims of ser-0.9 RFC3261 Violation<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV class=Section1>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial color=navy size=2><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">I do not agree...
Contact should be same in the dialog…<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial color=navy size=2><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="TEXT-ALIGN: center" align=center><FONT
face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
<HR tabIndex=-1 align=center width="100%" SIZE=3>
</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><FONT face=Tahoma size=2><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma">From:</SPAN></FONT></B><FONT
face=Tahoma size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma">
serusers-bounces@iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org] <B><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">On Behalf Of </SPAN></B>Linda Xiao<BR><B><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Sent:</SPAN></B> Wednesday, March 02, 2005 1:16
PM<BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">To:</SPAN></B> <st1:PersonName
style="BACKGROUND-POSITION: left bottom; BACKGROUND-IMAGE: url(res://ietag.dll/#34/#1001); BACKGROUND-REPEAT: repeat-x"
tabIndex=0 w:st="on">Java Rockx</st1:PersonName><BR><B><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Cc:</SPAN></B> serusers@lists.iptel.org<BR><B><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Subject:</SPAN></B> RE: [Serusers] Claims of ser-0.9
RFC3261 Violation</SPAN></FONT><o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><EM><B><I><FONT face="Century Gothic" color=blue size=2><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: 'Century Gothic'">You
are not the only service provider who makes this kind of changes. I also
encountered the same problem recently. But so far, this problem only happened on
one UA which has the same sip engine as this engineer's. All other UAs in
my hand can adapt this kinds of changes. So I personally think that instead of
complaining SIP proxy violation, I would rather complain the
interoperatibility of this sip engine.
</SPAN></FONT></I></B></EM><o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><EM><B><I><FONT face="Century Gothic" color=blue size=2><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: 'Century Gothic'">regards/Linda</SPAN></FONT></I></B></EM><o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 12pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman"
size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P></DIV>
<P><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=2><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">-----Original Message-----<BR>From:
serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org [<A
href="mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org">mailto:serusers-bounces@iptel.org</A>]
On Behalf Of Klaus Darilion<BR>Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 9:37 AM<BR>To:
<st1:PersonName
style="BACKGROUND-POSITION: left bottom; BACKGROUND-IMAGE: url(res://ietag.dll/#34/#1001); BACKGROUND-REPEAT: repeat-x"
tabIndex=0 w:st="on">Java Rockx</st1:PersonName><BR>Cc:
serusers@lists.iptel.org<BR>Subject: Re: [Serusers] Claims of ser-0.9 RFC3261
Violation<BR><BR><BR>I guess the engineer is right. Thus, I use
fix_nated_register() instead<BR>of fix_nated_contact which does not rewrite the
contact header.<BR><BR>regards,<BR>klaus<BR><BR><BR><st1:PersonName
style="BACKGROUND-POSITION: left bottom; BACKGROUND-IMAGE: url(res://ietag.dll/#34/#1001); BACKGROUND-REPEAT: repeat-x"
tabIndex=0 w:st="on">Java Rockx</st1:PersonName> wrote:<BR><BR>> It is the
same. Their IAD successfully registers the first time, but<BR>> loses its
registration because re-REGISTER messages are claimed to be<BR>> in voliation
of RFC3261.<BR>><BR>> Here is exactly what their engineers are telling
me:<BR>><BR>><BR>> Paul,<BR>> Here is the my
findings regarding the contact field in the<BR>> REGISTER
message...<BR>><BR>> We suspect the registration fails because the Contact
of 200OK does<BR>> not match the Contact of REGISTER:<BR>><BR>>>From
the capture, Our network toplogy is like:<BR>> TA: 192.168.0.180
<--------> Router 65.77.37.2 <----------> Softswitch<BR>>
64.84.242.120<BR>><BR>> Packet 4 REGISTER:<BR>> Contact:
<sip:3212514276@192.168.0.180;user=phone>;expires=200<BR>><BR>>
Packet 6 200OK:<BR>> Contact:
<sip:3212514276@65.77.37.2:36323;user=phone>;expires=200,<BR>>
<sip:3212514276@65.77.37.2:36235;user=phone>;expires=3<BR>><BR>> In
RFC3261, it says:<BR>> The 200 (OK) response from the
registrar contains a list of Contact<BR>> fields
enumerating all current bindings. The UA compares each<BR>>
contact address to see if it created the contact address,
using<BR>> comparison rules in Section 19.1.4. If so, it
updates the expiration<BR>> time interval according to the
expires parameter or, if absent, the<BR>> Expires field
value. The UA then issues a REGISTER request for each<BR>>
of its bindings before the expiration interval has elapsed. It
MAY<BR>> combine several updates into one REGISTER
request.<BR>><BR>> So obviously the contact addresses in 200OK don't match
the one in<BR>> REGISTER.<BR>><BR>><BR>> On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 11:28:51
-0500, Vitaly Nikolaev<BR>> <vitaly@voipsonic.com>
wrote:<BR>><BR>>>Is contact field that SER sends to UAS is same for all
requests ?<BR>>><BR>>>If not probably you are not doing fix natted
contact in some cases<BR>>><BR>>><BR>>>-----Original
Message-----<BR>>>From: serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org [<A
href="mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org">mailto:serusers-bounces@iptel.org</A>]<BR>>>On
Behalf Of <st1:PersonName
style="BACKGROUND-POSITION: left bottom; BACKGROUND-IMAGE: url(res://ietag.dll/#34/#1001); BACKGROUND-REPEAT: repeat-x"
tabIndex=0 w:st="on">Java Rockx</st1:PersonName><BR>>>Sent: Wednesday,
March 02, 2005 11:17 AM<BR>>>To: serusers@lists.iptel.org<BR>>>Subject:
[Serusers] Claims of ser-0.9 RFC3261 Violation<BR>>><BR>>>I just
spoke with an enginee from a manufacturer of the WorldAccxx<BR>>>telephone
adapter and he told me that my SIP proxy was in voliation
of<BR>>>RFC3261.<BR>>><BR>>>Below is a SIP registration
against my ser-0.9 proxy. I'm using media<BR>>>proxy for NAT traversal and
he says that my 200 OK is not valid and<BR>>>therefore their IAD
disregards the 200 OK response.<BR>>><BR>>>The problem he claims is
with the <Contact:> header in the 200 OK. SER<BR>>>has rewritten the
contact becase his IAD is NATed. Should I not be<BR>>>doing
this?<BR>>><BR>>>The actual problem is that when their IAD is NATed
the device looses<BR>>>its registration with ser because (they claim) that
the REGISTER<BR>>>message they send has a <Contact> header iwith a
different IP than<BR>>>what ser sends back in the 200 OK
message.<BR>>><BR>>>They referenced section 10.2.4 and 19.1.4 in
RFC3261.<BR>>><BR>>>Can anyone confirm or reject their
claims?<BR>>><BR>>>Please
help.<BR>>>Paul<BR>>><BR>>>REGISTER sip:sip.mycompany.com:5060
SIP/2.0<BR>>>Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
192.168.0.180;branch=z9hG4bKbb013e10d<BR>>>Max-Forwards:
70<BR>>>Content-Length: 0<BR>>>To: Accxx
<sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060><BR>>>From: Accxx
<sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060>;tag=1eb7db0b344ac92<BR>>>Call-ID:
bd4da0ebfe98297597243a92b1b0f868@192.168.0.180<BR>>>CSeq: 392547129
REGISTER<BR>>>Contact: Accxx
<sip:1000@192.168.0.180;user=phone>;expires=200<BR>>>Allow:
NOTIFY<BR>>>Allow: REFER<BR>>>Allow: OPTIONS<BR>>>Allow:
INVITE<BR>>>Allow: ACK<BR>>>Allow: CANCEL<BR>>>Allow:
BYE<BR>>>User-Agent: WATA200 Callctrl/1.5.1.1
MxSF/v3.2.6.26<BR>>><BR>>>SIP/2.0 100 Trying<BR>>>Via:
SIP/2.0/UDP<BR>>>192.168.0.180;branch=z9hG4bKbb013e10d;rport=36323;received=65.77.37.2<BR>>>To:
Accxx <sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060><BR>>>From: Accxx
<sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060>;tag=1eb7db0b344ac92<BR>>>Call-ID:
bd4da0ebfe98297597243a92b1b0f868@192.168.0.180<BR>>>CSeq: 392547129
REGISTER<BR>>>Content-Length: 0<BR>>><BR>>>SIP/2.0 401
Unauthorized<BR>>>Via:
SIP/2.0/UDP<BR>>>192.168.0.180;branch=z9hG4bKbb013e10d;rport=36323;received=65.77.37.2<BR>>>To:
Accxx<BR>>><sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060>;tag=bf952ed189d8425c881b09485aa0b6f1<BR>>>.bdad<BR>>>From:
Accxx
<sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060>;tag=1eb7db0b344ac92<BR>>>Call-ID:
bd4da0ebfe98297597243a92b1b0f868@192.168.0.180<BR>>>CSeq: 392547129
REGISTER<BR>>>WWW-Authenticate: Digest
realm="sip.mycompany.com",<BR>>>nonce="42025161902f6f6af11f01f0a93ad2877e606bbc"<BR>>>Content-Length:
0<BR>>><BR>>>REGISTER sip:sip.mycompany.com:5060
SIP/2.0<BR>>>Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
192.168.0.180;branch=z9hG4bK88fcb4e76<BR>>>Max-Forwards:
70<BR>>>Content-Length: 0<BR>>>To: Accxx
<sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060><BR>>>From: Accxx
<sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060>;tag=1eb7db0b344ac92<BR>>>Call-ID:
bd4da0ebfe98297597243a92b1b0f868@192.168.0.180<BR>>>CSeq: 392547130
REGISTER<BR>>>Contact: Accxx
<sip:1000@192.168.0.180;user=phone>;expires=200<BR>>>Allow:
NOTIFY<BR>>>Allow: REFER<BR>>>Allow: OPTIONS<BR>>>Allow:
INVITE<BR>>>Allow: ACK<BR>>>Allow: CANCEL<BR>>>Allow:
BYE<BR>>>Authorization:Digest<BR>>>response="18aabe984a6d89cc537cec9ce43b198d",username="1000",realm="sip<BR>>>.mycom<BR>>>pany.com",nonce="42025161902f6f6af11f01f0a93ad2877e606bbc",uri="sip:sip.myco<BR>>>mpany.com:5060"<BR>>>User-Agent:
WATA200 Callctrl/1.5.1.1 MxSF/v3.2.6.26<BR>>><BR>>>SIP/2.0 100
Trying<BR>>>Via:
SIP/2.0/UDP<BR>>>192.168.0.180;branch=z9hG4bK88fcb4e76;rport=36323;received=65.77.37.2<BR>>>To:
Accxx <sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060><BR>>>From: Accxx
<sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060>;tag=1eb7db0b344ac92<BR>>>Call-ID:
bd4da0ebfe98297597243a92b1b0f868@192.168.0.180<BR>>>CSeq: 392547130
REGISTER<BR>>>Content-Length: 0<BR>>><BR>>>SIP/2.0 200
OK<BR>>>Via:
SIP/2.0/UDP<BR>>>192.168.0.180;branch=z9hG4bK88fcb4e76;rport=36323;received=65.77.37.2<BR>>>To:
Accxx<BR>>><sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060>;tag=bf952ed189d8425c881b09485aa0b6f1<BR>>>.5e63<BR>>>From:
Accxx
<sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060>;tag=1eb7db0b344ac92<BR>>>Call-ID:
bd4da0ebfe98297597243a92b1b0f868@192.168.0.180<BR>>>CSeq: 392547130
REGISTER<BR>>>Contact:
<sip:1000@65.77.37.2:36323;user=phone>;expires=200,<BR>>><sip:1000@65.77.37.2:36235;user=phone>;expires=3<BR>>>Content-Length:
0<BR>>><BR>>>_______________________________________________<BR>>>Serusers
mailing list<BR>>>serusers@lists.iptel.org <A
href="http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers">http://mail.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers</A><BR>>><BR>>><BR>><BR>><BR>>
_______________________________________________<BR>> Serusers mailing
list<BR>> serusers@lists.iptel.org <A
href="http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers">http://mail.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers</A><BR>><BR>><BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>Serusers
mailing list<BR>serusers@lists.iptel.org <A
href="http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers">http://mail.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers</A></SPAN></FONT><o:p></o:p></P></DIV></BODY></HTML>