[Asterisk-Dev] rfc3581 - implemented correctly in * ?

[John Todd]

You've also got your bottom-posting order in the wrong order.  :-)

As far as I know, things that are separated by ";" characters can be 
moved around each other; ordering should not be important.  I can't 
find the RFC that says this, so I'm possibly wrong with this.

I will say that every example I can find has "rport" right after the 
IP address (as in your example #6 below.)  I don't know if Asterisk 
supports the "rport=<number>" options, either.

Let us know of the results of your experiment.  If the Uniden works 
after you move things around, I think a ticket should be opened (by 
you, since you'll have the empirical data) to suggest a change to 
Asterisk so that it sends the "expected" ordering (even though it 
perhaps shouldn't matter.)

JT


At 1:50 PM -0600 on 6/25/04, Ryan Courtnage wrote:
>Hmmm, I think * may have the syntax wrong:
>
>from http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3581.txt :
>
>----snip----
>5.  Syntax
>
>    The syntax for the "rport" parameter is:
>
>    response-port = "rport" [EQUAL 1*DIGIT]
>
>    This extends the existing definition of the Via header field
>    parameters, so that its BNF now looks like:
>
>    via-params        =  via-ttl / via-maddr
>                         / via-received / via-branch
>                         / response-port / via-extension
>
>6.  Example
>
>    A client sends an INVITE to a proxy server which looks like, in part:
>
>    INVITE sip:user at example.com SIP/2.0
>    Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 10.1.1.1:4540;rport;branch=z9hG4bKkjshdyff
>----snip----
>
>
>* is sending as:
>
>Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.1.102:5060;branch=z9hG4bK4b9f493c;rport
>
>ie: rport is in the wrong spot.  Don't know this makes a difference. 
>
>I'll try hacking chan_sip.c myself to see if the order of the parameters
>matter.
>
>Ryan
>
>
>On Friday 25 June 2004 12:44, Ryan Courtnage wrote:
>>  Hi,
>>
>>  Bug #1862 implemented RFC3581.
>>
>>  I'm no expert, but it appears that this change appends ";rport" to the end
>>  of the VIA header field on INVITEs sent to SIP phones:
>>
>>      Message Header
>>          Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.1.102:5060;branch=z9hG4bK4b9f493c;rport
>>
>>  Problem is, this breaks dialing to Uniden UIP200 phones (they don't reply
>>   back when the Via header has ";rport" on the end).
>>
>>  So, do I need to put pressure on Uniden to fix this, or has RFC2581 been
>>  implemented in * incorrectly ?
>>
>>  Thanks for any help on this - I'm currently stuck using * builds previous
>>  to Bug #1862.
>>
>>  Ryan
>>
>>  PS: I'm usind nat=no ... if that matters.
>>
>>  --
>>  ..................................
>>  Ryan Courtnage
>>  Coalescent Systems Inc
>>  403.244.8089
>>  www.voxbox.ca
>>  _______________________________________________
>>  Asterisk-Dev mailing list
>>  Asterisk-Dev at lists.digium.com
>>  http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev
>>  To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
>>     http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev
>_______________________________________________
>Asterisk-Dev mailing list
>Asterisk-Dev at lists.digium.com
>http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev
>To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
>    http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev