[asterisk-dev] [Code Review] SIP: peer matching by callbackextension

[Olivier Krief]

2009/8/28 <asterisk-dev-request at lists.digium.com>

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


this one ?
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-kaplan-dispatch-sip-implicit-registrations-00.txt


>
> thanks
> klaus
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-dev/attachments/20090829/43bc0069/attachment.htm