<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2009/8/28 <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:asterisk-dev-request@lists.digium.com">asterisk-dev-request@lists.digium.com</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>
Message: 7<br>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 18:56:23 +0200<br>
From: Klaus Darilion <<a href="mailto:klaus.mailinglists@pernau.at">klaus.mailinglists@pernau.at</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [asterisk-dev] [Code Review] SIP: peer matching<br>
bycallbackextension<br>
To: Asterisk Developers Mailing List <<a href="mailto:asterisk-dev@lists.digium.com">asterisk-dev@lists.digium.com</a>><br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:4A980C37.2020407@pernau.at">4A980C37.2020407@pernau.at</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Olle E. Johansson schrieb:<br>
> 28 aug 2009 kl. 12.40 skrev Nick Lewis:<br>
><br>
>> oej<br>
>><br>
>>> I think we have to solve this differently. When we register, we don't<br>
>>> register the extension as a contact, we generate a unique random<br>
>>> string. When the call comes back, the random string will be the<br>
>>> request URI and we can match on that. I actually have code for that<br>
>>> somewhere.<br>
>> I do not see the advantage of a unique random string. I suggest a<br>
>> different unique string - the peername.<br>
> Well, not all registrations is based on a peer. And you can have<br>
> multiple registrations for a peer.<br>
><br>
>>> What messes that up is that you know frequently have registrations<br>
>>> for<br>
>>> SIP trunks where you won't get the contact back in the request URI,<br>
>>> which messes things up.<br>
>> I have also experienced some trunk providers that make this mistake.<br>
>> They tend to send the username back instead. In these cases I simply<br>
>> name the peer after the username. This does not clash with other<br>
>> peernames on the system because client peers have shorter names e.g.<br>
>> [101] and trunk peers typically have usernames that are PSTN numbers<br>
>> e.g. [442920500718] and hence unique.<br>
> Well, you should not have phone numbers as device identifiers. That's<br>
> a topic you can read ton of mails about in asterisk-users if you need an<br>
> explanation.<br>
><br>
> Check the draft by Hadriel Kaplan about this kind of registration,<br>
> something that's connected with the work for the new SIPconnect spec.<br>
<br>
Hi Olle!<br>
<br>
What's the draft name?</blockquote><div> </div><div>this one ?<br><a href="http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-kaplan-dispatch-sip-implicit-registrations-00.txt">http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-kaplan-dispatch-sip-implicit-registrations-00.txt</a> <br>
<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br>
<br>
thanks<br>
klaus<br>
<br></blockquote></div>