<html 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" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">

<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)">
<!--[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]-->
<title>Message</title>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
 name="PersonName"/>
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }
</style>
<![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
 /* Font Definitions */
 @font-face
        {font-family:Tahoma;
        panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
        {font-family:"Century Gothic";
        panose-1:2 11 5 2 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
 /* Style Definitions */
 p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
        {margin:0in;
        margin-bottom:.0001pt;
        font-size:12.0pt;
        font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
        {color:blue;
        text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
        {color:blue;
        text-decoration:underline;}
p
        {mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
        margin-right:0in;
        mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
        margin-left:0in;
        font-size:12.0pt;
        font-family:"Times New Roman";}
span.EmailStyle20
        {mso-style-type:personal-reply;
        font-family:Arial;
        color:navy;}
@page Section1
        {size:8.5in 11.0in;
        margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
div.Section1
        {page:Section1;}
-->
</style>

</head>

<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=blue>

<div class=Section1>

<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>I do not agree... Contact should be same
in the dialog&#8230;<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></font></p>

<div>

<div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>

<hr size=3 width="100%" align=center tabindex=-1>

</span></font></div>

<p class=MsoNormal><b><font size=2 face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold'>From:</span></font></b><font size=2
face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;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 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 size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></font></p>

<div>

<p class=MsoNormal><em><b><i><font size=2 color=blue face="Century Gothic"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Century Gothic";color:blue;font-weight:
bold'>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&nbsp;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&nbsp;complain
the interoperatibility of this sip engine. </span></font></i></b></em><o:p></o:p></p>

</div>

<div>

<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

</div>

<div>

<p class=MsoNormal><em><b><i><font size=2 color=blue face="Century Gothic"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Century Gothic";color:blue;font-weight:
bold'>regards/Linda</span></font></i></b></em><o:p></o:p></p>

</div>

<div>

<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></font></p>

</div>

<p><font size=2 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>-----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 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 w:st="on">Java Rockx</st1:PersonName> wrote:<br>
<br>
&gt; It is the same. Their IAD successfully registers the first time, but<br>
&gt; loses its registration because re-REGISTER messages are claimed to be<br>
&gt; in voliation of RFC3261.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Here is exactly what their engineers are telling me:<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Paul,<br>
&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Here is the my findings regarding the contact
field in the<br>
&gt; REGISTER message...<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; We suspect the registration fails because the Contact of 200OK does<br>
&gt; not match the Contact of REGISTER:<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;From the capture, Our network toplogy is like:<br>
&gt; TA: 192.168.0.180 &lt;--------&gt; Router 65.77.37.2 &lt;----------&gt;
Softswitch<br>
&gt; 64.84.242.120<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Packet 4 REGISTER:<br>
&gt; Contact: &lt;sip:3212514276@192.168.0.180;user=phone&gt;;expires=200<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Packet 6 200OK:<br>
&gt; Contact: &lt;sip:3212514276@65.77.37.2:36323;user=phone&gt;;expires=200,<br>
&gt; &lt;sip:3212514276@65.77.37.2:36235;user=phone&gt;;expires=3<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; In RFC3261, it says:<br>
&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The 200 (OK) response from the registrar contains a list
of Contact<br>
&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; fields enumerating all current bindings. The UA compares
each<br>
&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; contact address to see if it created the contact
address, using<br>
&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; comparison rules in Section 19.1.4. If so, it updates
the expiration<br>
&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; time interval according to the expires parameter or, if
absent, the<br>
&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Expires field value. The UA then issues a REGISTER
request for each<br>
&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; of its bindings before the expiration interval has
elapsed. It MAY<br>
&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; combine several updates into one REGISTER request.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; So obviously the contact addresses in 200OK don't match the one in<br>
&gt; REGISTER.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 11:28:51 -0500, Vitaly Nikolaev<br>
&gt; &lt;vitaly@voipsonic.com&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;Is contact field that SER sends to UAS is same for all requests ?<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;If not probably you are not doing fix natted contact in some cases<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;-----Original Message-----<br>
&gt;&gt;From: serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org [<a
href="mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org">mailto:serusers-bounces@iptel.org</a>]<br>
&gt;&gt;On Behalf Of <st1:PersonName w:st="on">Java Rockx</st1:PersonName><br>
&gt;&gt;Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 11:17 AM<br>
&gt;&gt;To: serusers@lists.iptel.org<br>
&gt;&gt;Subject: [Serusers] Claims of ser-0.9 RFC3261 Violation<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;I just spoke with an enginee from a manufacturer of the WorldAccxx<br>
&gt;&gt;telephone adapter and he told me that my SIP proxy was in voliation of<br>
&gt;&gt;RFC3261.<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;Below is a SIP registration against my ser-0.9 proxy. I'm using media<br>
&gt;&gt;proxy for NAT traversal and he says that my 200 OK is not valid and<br>
&gt;&gt;therefore their IAD disregards the 200 OK response.<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;The problem he claims is with the &lt;Contact:&gt; header in the 200
OK. SER<br>
&gt;&gt;has rewritten the contact becase his IAD is NATed. Should I not be<br>
&gt;&gt;doing this?<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;The actual problem is that when their IAD is NATed the device looses<br>
&gt;&gt;its registration with ser because (they claim) that the REGISTER<br>
&gt;&gt;message they send has a &lt;Contact&gt; header iwith a different IP
than<br>
&gt;&gt;what ser sends back in the 200 OK message.<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;They referenced section 10.2.4 and 19.1.4 in RFC3261.<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;Can anyone confirm or reject their claims?<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;Please help.<br>
&gt;&gt;Paul<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;REGISTER sip:sip.mycompany.com:5060 SIP/2.0<br>
&gt;&gt;Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.0.180;branch=z9hG4bKbb013e10d<br>
&gt;&gt;Max-Forwards: 70<br>
&gt;&gt;Content-Length: 0<br>
&gt;&gt;To: Accxx &lt;sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;From: Accxx &lt;sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060&gt;;tag=1eb7db0b344ac92<br>
&gt;&gt;Call-ID: bd4da0ebfe98297597243a92b1b0f868@192.168.0.180<br>
&gt;&gt;CSeq: 392547129 REGISTER<br>
&gt;&gt;Contact: Accxx &lt;sip:1000@192.168.0.180;user=phone&gt;;expires=200<br>
&gt;&gt;Allow: NOTIFY<br>
&gt;&gt;Allow: REFER<br>
&gt;&gt;Allow: OPTIONS<br>
&gt;&gt;Allow: INVITE<br>
&gt;&gt;Allow: ACK<br>
&gt;&gt;Allow: CANCEL<br>
&gt;&gt;Allow: BYE<br>
&gt;&gt;User-Agent: WATA200 Callctrl/1.5.1.1 MxSF/v3.2.6.26<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;SIP/2.0 100 Trying<br>
&gt;&gt;Via: SIP/2.0/UDP<br>
&gt;&gt;192.168.0.180;branch=z9hG4bKbb013e10d;rport=36323;received=65.77.37.2<br>
&gt;&gt;To: Accxx &lt;sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;From: Accxx &lt;sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060&gt;;tag=1eb7db0b344ac92<br>
&gt;&gt;Call-ID: bd4da0ebfe98297597243a92b1b0f868@192.168.0.180<br>
&gt;&gt;CSeq: 392547129 REGISTER<br>
&gt;&gt;Content-Length: 0<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;SIP/2.0 401 Unauthorized<br>
&gt;&gt;Via: SIP/2.0/UDP<br>
&gt;&gt;192.168.0.180;branch=z9hG4bKbb013e10d;rport=36323;received=65.77.37.2<br>
&gt;&gt;To: Accxx<br>
&gt;&gt;&lt;sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060&gt;;tag=bf952ed189d8425c881b09485aa0b6f1<br>
&gt;&gt;.bdad<br>
&gt;&gt;From: Accxx &lt;sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060&gt;;tag=1eb7db0b344ac92<br>
&gt;&gt;Call-ID: bd4da0ebfe98297597243a92b1b0f868@192.168.0.180<br>
&gt;&gt;CSeq: 392547129 REGISTER<br>
&gt;&gt;WWW-Authenticate: Digest realm=&quot;sip.mycompany.com&quot;,<br>
&gt;&gt;nonce=&quot;42025161902f6f6af11f01f0a93ad2877e606bbc&quot;<br>
&gt;&gt;Content-Length: 0<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;REGISTER sip:sip.mycompany.com:5060 SIP/2.0<br>
&gt;&gt;Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.0.180;branch=z9hG4bK88fcb4e76<br>
&gt;&gt;Max-Forwards: 70<br>
&gt;&gt;Content-Length: 0<br>
&gt;&gt;To: Accxx &lt;sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;From: Accxx &lt;sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060&gt;;tag=1eb7db0b344ac92<br>
&gt;&gt;Call-ID: bd4da0ebfe98297597243a92b1b0f868@192.168.0.180<br>
&gt;&gt;CSeq: 392547130 REGISTER<br>
&gt;&gt;Contact: Accxx &lt;sip:1000@192.168.0.180;user=phone&gt;;expires=200<br>
&gt;&gt;Allow: NOTIFY<br>
&gt;&gt;Allow: REFER<br>
&gt;&gt;Allow: OPTIONS<br>
&gt;&gt;Allow: INVITE<br>
&gt;&gt;Allow: ACK<br>
&gt;&gt;Allow: CANCEL<br>
&gt;&gt;Allow: BYE<br>
&gt;&gt;Authorization:Digest<br>
&gt;&gt;response=&quot;18aabe984a6d89cc537cec9ce43b198d&quot;,username=&quot;1000&quot;,realm=&quot;sip<br>
&gt;&gt;.mycom<br>
&gt;&gt;pany.com&quot;,nonce=&quot;42025161902f6f6af11f01f0a93ad2877e606bbc&quot;,uri=&quot;sip:sip.myco<br>
&gt;&gt;mpany.com:5060&quot;<br>
&gt;&gt;User-Agent: WATA200 Callctrl/1.5.1.1 MxSF/v3.2.6.26<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;SIP/2.0 100 Trying<br>
&gt;&gt;Via: SIP/2.0/UDP<br>
&gt;&gt;192.168.0.180;branch=z9hG4bK88fcb4e76;rport=36323;received=65.77.37.2<br>
&gt;&gt;To: Accxx &lt;sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;From: Accxx &lt;sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060&gt;;tag=1eb7db0b344ac92<br>
&gt;&gt;Call-ID: bd4da0ebfe98297597243a92b1b0f868@192.168.0.180<br>
&gt;&gt;CSeq: 392547130 REGISTER<br>
&gt;&gt;Content-Length: 0<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;SIP/2.0 200 OK<br>
&gt;&gt;Via: SIP/2.0/UDP<br>
&gt;&gt;192.168.0.180;branch=z9hG4bK88fcb4e76;rport=36323;received=65.77.37.2<br>
&gt;&gt;To: Accxx<br>
&gt;&gt;&lt;sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060&gt;;tag=bf952ed189d8425c881b09485aa0b6f1<br>
&gt;&gt;.5e63<br>
&gt;&gt;From: Accxx &lt;sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060&gt;;tag=1eb7db0b344ac92<br>
&gt;&gt;Call-ID: bd4da0ebfe98297597243a92b1b0f868@192.168.0.180<br>
&gt;&gt;CSeq: 392547130 REGISTER<br>
&gt;&gt;Contact: &lt;sip:1000@65.77.37.2:36323;user=phone&gt;;expires=200,<br>
&gt;&gt;&lt;sip:1000@65.77.37.2:36235;user=phone&gt;;expires=3<br>
&gt;&gt;Content-Length: 0<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;_______________________________________________<br>
&gt;&gt;Serusers mailing list<br>
&gt;&gt;serusers@lists.iptel.org <a
href="http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers">http://mail.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers</a><br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; _______________________________________________<br>
&gt; Serusers mailing list<br>
&gt; serusers@lists.iptel.org <a
href="http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers">http://mail.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers</a><br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;<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>