On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 10:42 AM, Philippe<philippe.leuba at eyepmedia.com> wrote: > Hi, > > > > Some servers (or SBC) reject SIP TCP requests (i.e. REGISTER) if they > contain a different port in the Via and in the Contact. > > > > By default in pjsip, Contact is filled with listening port, but Via is > filled with real port of the TCP sending connection. > > Via must always be set to the source address of the request, so we shouldn't change that. Contact, on the other hand, is filled up by the application (or PJSUA-LIB), and in fact current PJSUA-LIB fills this with the same value as the Via sent-by already. I forgot in which version this was changed like this, but it's quite a long time ago (must be more than a year I think). If you're not using PJSUA-LIB then just change your app. :) > > We want to have the listener port in the Via and in the Contact headers. > > > > I have tried to put the port of the listener in the TCP transport internal > structure at the creation and this work the first time. > > But If I destroy the TCP factory and recreate a new one, the TCP transport > stays in the list of the transport > > manager and will be reused for the next sending to the same destination. By > consequence, the transport keeps the port of the previous listener and this > is not correct. > > That is the intended behavior. All transports keep a reference counter of their users (e.g. transactions, registration sessions), and for ephemeral transport such as TCP (client), it will only be closed after a certain idle period (PJSIP_TRANSPORT_IDLE_TIME, 10 minutes default), that is after it's reference counter gets to zero. What you should also do is to call pjsip_transport_shutdown() for the particular TCP transport, so that it won't get used for subsequent request. > > TCP transports are only destroyed when we destroy the transport manager and > our usage of pjsip is that we create and destroy transports at will without > destroying the endpoint and therefore the transport manager. > See above. > > > Usage of transport selector seems to not solve the problem as well because > it seems that in this case a new TCP transport is created for each sending! > > Looking at the code, you're probably right! Cheers Benny > > Do you have a suggestion how to solve this problem? > > > > We are using a pretty old release of pjsip (0.8) but it seems that no > significant changes were done in this domain. > > > > Best regards > > > > Philippe Leuba > > _______________________________________________ > Visit our blog: http://blog.pjsip.org > > pjsip mailing list > pjsip at lists.pjsip.org > http://lists.pjsip.org/mailman/listinfo/pjsip_lists.pjsip.org > >
