[reSIProcate] Registering as multiple contacts

Byron Campen bcampen at estacado.net
Wed Mar 7 10:02:10 CST 2007


	This is being caused because of a behavior in the stack. Right now,  
the stack will fill out a single Contact header if it appears in an  
outgoing request. This is because the UA may not have knowledge of  
what interface will be able to receive traffic back from where the  
request is going. The way the TU signals to the stack that it wants  
it to fill out a Contact header is to have a single Contact header- 
field-value with no host. I think this is broken, and we ought to  
find a more explicit way of signaling our desire to the stack.

Best regards,
Byron Campen

> I'm trying to register with a proxy as multiple contacts in a  
> single SIP REGISTER request. Is there a 'correct' method of doing  
> this in the DUM?
> This is what I'm currently doing, which I'm not sure is correct and  
> produces weird behaviour:
>
> SharedPtr<SipMessage> reg = m_dum.makeRegistration 
> (m_dum.getMasterProfile()->getDefaultFrom(), (AppDialogSet*)NULL);
>
> NameAddr AdditionalContact("sip:8053 at 192.168.0.222:5060");
> reg->header(h_Contacts).push_back(AdditionalContact);
>
> m_dum.send(reg);
>
>
> The following is sent down the wire:
>
> Request-Line: REGISTER sip:192.168.0.222 SIP/2.0
> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.0.199:5060;branch=z9hG4bK- 
> d8754z-886bdf4b3332cc2d-1---d8754z-;rport
> Max-Forwards: 70
> Contact: <sip:8051>
> Contact: <sip:8053 at 192.168.0.222:5060>
> To: "ContactPortal"<sip:8051 at 192.168.0.222>
> From: "ContactPortal"<sip:8051 at 192.168.0.222>;tag=d05e7d6e
> Call-ID: NmViY2JjMWNjMTQ4MGUwOTVlYzRjMzU3ZTgzZTIxNzM.
> CSeq: 1 REGISTER
> Expires: 3600
> Allow: INVITE, ACK, CANCEL, OPTIONS, BYE, NOTIFY
> User-Agent: ContactPortal/11.0
> Content-Length: 0
>
>
> The asterisk PBX I'm testing against never responds with a 200 OK  
> to this (all I get is 100 Trying). So instead I tried doing
> reg->header(h_Contacts).push_front(AdditionalContact);
> This does get a 200 OK response, however neither 8051 or 8053 seem  
> to work.
>
> Any ideas?
>
> _______________________________________________
> resiprocate-devel mailing list
> resiprocate-devel at list.resiprocate.org
> https://list.resiprocate.org/mailman/listinfo/resiprocate-devel

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.resiprocate.org/pipermail/resiprocate-devel/attachments/20070307/1e56f129/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2423 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://list.resiprocate.org/pipermail/resiprocate-devel/attachments/20070307/1e56f129/attachment.bin>


More information about the resiprocate-devel mailing list