[asterisk-bugs] [Asterisk 0014256]: [patch] SIP Channel name is not unique

[Asterisk Bug Tracker]

A NOTE has been added to this issue. 
====================================================================== 
http://bugs.digium.com/view.php?id=14256 
====================================================================== 
Reported By:                Nick_Lewis
Assigned To:                file
====================================================================== 
Project:                    Asterisk
Issue ID:                   14256
Category:                   Channels/chan_sip/General
Reproducibility:            always
Severity:                   minor
Priority:                   normal
Status:                     assigned
Asterisk Version:           1.6.0 
Regression:                 No 
SVN Branch (only for SVN checkouts, not tarball releases): N/A 
SVN Revision (number only!):  
Request Review:              
====================================================================== 
Date Submitted:             2009-01-16 04:31 CST
Last Modified:              2009-02-13 13:13 CST
====================================================================== 
Summary:                    [patch] SIP Channel name is not unique
Description: 
The name of the asterisk channel that is created on an incoming sip call is
not unique

There can be two trunks with different ITSP but same username e.g.
[trunk1]
username=nicklewis
host=sip.myitsp1.com

[trunk2]
username=nicklewis
host=sip.myitsp2.net

The sip channel name of the asterisk channel that is created when a call
comes into these trunks is "SIP/nicklewis" in both cases. The sip channel
should be named after the peername instead e.g. "SIP/trunk1" and
"SIP/trunk2" 
====================================================================== 

---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
 (0100120) file (administrator) - 2009-02-13 13:13
 http://bugs.digium.com/view.php?id=14256#c100120 
---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
After looking at this further I do agree that using peername should be
fine.

oej: Have you also given it a look and can agree? 

Issue History 
Date Modified    Username       Field                    Change               
====================================================================== 
2009-02-13 13:13 file           Note Added: 0100120                          
======================================================================