<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Message</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1458" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><!-- Converted from text/plain format --><STRONG><EM><FONT
face="Century Gothic" color=#0000ff size=2>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.
</FONT></EM></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><EM><FONT face="Century Gothic" color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></EM></STRONG> </DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><EM><FONT face="Century Gothic" color=#0000ff
size=2>regards/Linda</FONT></EM></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><BR><BR></DIV>
<P><FONT size=2>-----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:
Java Rockx<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>Java Rockx
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 Java Rockx<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><BR></FONT></P></BODY></HTML>