[OpenSIPS-Users] Validate dialog errors.

[Vlad Paiu]

Hi,

Quote from the RFC ( 19.1.4 section ) :

          A URI omitting any component with a default value will not
          match a URI explicitly containing that component with its
          default value.  For instance, a URI omitting the optional port
          component will not match a URI explicitly declaring port 5060.
          The same is true for the transport-parameter, ttl-parameter,
          user-parameter, and method components.

          Defining sip:user at host to not be equivalent to
          sip:user at host:5060 is a change from RFC 2543.  When deriving
          addresses from URIs, equivalent addresses are expected from
          equivalent URIs.  The URI sip:user at host:5060 will always
          resolve to port 5060.  The URI sip:user at host may resolve to
          other ports through the DNS SRV mechanisms detailed in [4].



That's why I was saying this restriction makes sense for FQDNs, where 
SRV might come into place and select a different port, but doesn't make 
alot of sense for cases where the host part of the URI is an actual IP.

Regards,
Vlad

Pe 3/15/2012 11:15 PM, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu a scris:
> Sorry, a typo in my prev email - I wanted to say "a missing port 
> *should* match the default port "....
>
> Bogdan
>
> On 03/15/2012 11:09 PM, Vlad Paiu wrote:
>> Hi Bogdan,
>>
>> Yes, that what the RFC says. Although I don't really see the reason 
>> for this when the URI domains are IPs, and not FQDNs
>>
>> Regards,
>> Vlad
>>
>> Pe 3/15/2012 11:02 PM, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu a scris:
>>> Hi Vlad,
>>>
>>> AFAIR, according to SIP-wise URI matching, a missing port shouldn't 
>>> match the default port for that proto ? Correct me I'm wrong :D
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Bogdan
>>>
>>> On 03/15/2012 09:44 PM, Vlad Paiu wrote:
>>>> Hello Flavio,
>>>>
>>>> Yes, indeed, the only thing different seems to be that the 
>>>> sequential request contains the 5060 port, while the dialog 
>>>> information does not have it.
>>>> According to the 3261 RFC, these URIs do not match.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Vlad
>>>>
>>>> Pe 3/15/2012 9:37 PM, Flavio Goncalves a scris:
>>>>> Hello all,
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm noticing some issues with validate dialogs in one of our servers.
>>>>>
>>>>> ERROR:dialog:dlg_validate_dialog: failed to validate remote 
>>>>> contact: dlg=[sip:140012556185441445 at 216.59.16.137 
>>>>> <mailto:sip%3A140012556185441445 at 216.59.16.137>] , 
>>>>> req=[sip:140012556185441445 at 216.59.16.137:5060 
>>>>> <http://sip:140012556185441445@216.59.16.137:5060>].
>>>>>
>>>>> What I see different on dlg and req is the port number. Is this 
>>>>> correct?
>>>>>
>>>>> Flavio E. Goncalves
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Users mailing list
>>>>> Users at lists.opensips.org
>>>>> http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Users mailing list
>>>> Users at lists.opensips.org
>>>> http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Bogdan-Andrei Iancu
>>> OpenSIPS Founder and Developer
>>> http://www.opensips-solutions.com
>>
>
>
> -- 
> Bogdan-Andrei Iancu
> OpenSIPS Founder and Developer
> http://www.opensips-solutions.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensips.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20120315/ee1da46f/attachment-0001.htm>