Hi Philippe,
Philippe wrote:
> We discovered that PJ stack is not compatible with SER. This is may be
> caused by the changes done in the bug fix #371.
>
>
>
> This is due to the fact that SER do not provide the same contact in the
> response that in the REGISTER:
>
>
>
> REGISTER sip:proxy01.sipphone.com;transport=UDP SIP/2.0
>
> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
> 192.168.1.41:1637;rport;branch=z9hG4bKPjbbd860b613154a5eaa9fabf99c1c3ace
>
> Contact: <sip:17472769426 at 192.168.1.41:1637;transport=UDP>
>
> .
>
>
> SIP/2.0 200 OK
>
> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
> 192.168.1.41:1637;rport=7912;branch=z9hG4bKPjbbd860b613154a5eaa9fabf99c1c3ac
> e;received=81.63.143.178
>
> Contact: <sip:17472769426 at 81.63.143.178:7912;transport=UDP>;expires=1800
>
> I agree that the SER behavior is not standard.
>
i think your assertion is not correct!
SER/openSER just notified you that you've registered a non-routable
address(192.168.1.41), but you'll still be able to receive calls when those hits
the PX!
>
> What can be do to solve the issue?
>
Enable STUN and the right Contact address will be automatically used by the
library to perform the registration.
Another elegant way of solving this (problem) without relaying on STUN being
enabled by the UA is to patch *tsx_callback* in sip_reg.c since you can securely
match that registration as described in rfc.3261 ;o)
-cheers
Alain
--
""
(o)(o)
___o00o__(__)__o00o_____
1024D/A9F85A52 2000-01-18 Dipl.-Ing. Alain Totouom <totouom at gmx.de>
PGP Fingerprint DA18 0DF2 FBD2 5F67 0656 452D E3A2 7531 A9F8 5A52
