| < Previous by Date | Date Index | Next by Date > |
| < Previous in Thread | Thread Index |
|
I think the difference between b2bua and proxy is an extra call-control logic implemented inside b2bua between uac and uas. I don't need that extra call-control logic, I will rely on the logic implemented by Client and Gateway. For now I see a problem with assigning CSeq to injected
requests involved in password challenge-response negotiation
between Proxy and Gateway. According to
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3261#section-12.2.1.1 "Requests
within a dialog MUST contain strictly monotonically increasing
and contiguous CSeq sequence numbers (increasing-by-one) in each
direction". That means I will break Client-generated CSeq. I
have an idea to provoke the client to issue an extra request to
bump it's CSeq so the numbers will sync. For example make the
client do an extra registration request. Or to reject the next
client's request with some 3xx error so the client will resend
the request again. Those are hacks of course. BTW, according to
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3665#section-3.3 injecting Auth
by SIP Proxy is prohibited, the Client must issue all the auth
data itself. Anyway, if the client is not capable of that, let's
make a hack. Regards, Roman Rybalko
From: Scott Godin
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 12:15AM +0300 To: Roman Rybalko Cc: Resiprocate-users Subject: Re: [reSIProcate-users] Authorization by Proxy to Gateway - B2BUA FYI - there are 2 B2BUA projects base on resip.
Unfortunately I haven't really played with either of them much to
know if they are appropriate for you, nor do I know the state of
these projects:
Scott
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 5:11 PM, Scott
Godin <sgodin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
|