<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 TRANSITIONAL//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; CHARSET=UTF-8">
<META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="GtkHTML/4.4.3">
</HEAD>
<BODY>
Hello,<BR>
<BR>
What I am trying to work out is whether Kamailio now supports enough of Outbound and GRUU that the contact aliasing I am using with WebSockets is no longer necessary?<BR>
<BR>
Also, is the current support complete enough that there are no issues around WebSocket connections being broken and the client re-registering (effectively replacing the existing contact binding)?<BR>
<BR>
I believe for WebSockets the situation is exactly the same as you would have for a client connecting over TCP from behind a NAT.<BR>
<BR>
Regards,<BR>
<BR>
Peter<BR>
<BR>
On Tue, 2012-07-31 at 13:59 +0200, José Luis Millán wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
Hi,
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
Outbound provides the UAC a way to update a binding even if it reboots. For that, a unique and permanent value of instance-id is used, which in conjunction with the AoR and reg-id determines the binding to the UAC.
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
Having said this, I guess that the CSeq comparison between the one in the Register request and the one in the binding does not apply in this scenario since it is not guaranteed that a UAC saves the CSeq value of the registration among reboots.
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
Regards.<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
2012/7/31 Daniel-Constantin Mierla <<A HREF="mailto:miconda@gmail.com">miconda@gmail.com</A>><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
Hello,
</BLOCKQUOTE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
<BR>
On 7/30/12 7:23 PM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
2012/7/30 Daniel-Constantin Mierla <<A HREF="mailto:miconda@gmail.com">miconda@gmail.com</A>>:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
quick question to double check if what I understood when I read the specs<BR>
was ok -- in gruu/ob, it does not matter anymore the callid/cseq<BR>
combination, or there should still be some checks related to it?<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
In fact that depends on Outbound instead of GRUU, and not, when using<BR>
Outbound the registrar does NOT check the Call-ID and CSeq of the<BR>
REGISTER (and using GRUU means that Outbound is also used, so the<BR>
Contact has a +sip.instance and reg-id params which are inspected by<BR>
the registrar to create/update/delete a binding).
</BLOCKQUOTE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
but what about same callid with lower cseq, combined with same sip instance and reg-id?
</BLOCKQUOTE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
Cheers,<BR>
Daniel<BR>
<BR>
<PRE>
_______________________________________________
sr-dev mailing list
<A HREF="mailto:sr-dev@lists.sip-router.org">sr-dev@lists.sip-router.org</A>
<A HREF="http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev">http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev</A>
</PRE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<TABLE CELLSPACING="0" CELLPADDING="0" WIDTH="100%">
<TR>
<TD>
<PRE>
--
Peter Dunkley
Technical Director
Crocodile RCS Ltd
</PRE>
</TD>
</TR>
</TABLE>
</BODY>
</HTML>