Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread,
including the initial issue submission, for this request,
not just the latest update.
Submitted By: Vladimir Kuznetsov (kuznetsov82)
Assigned to: Bogdan-Andrei Iancu (bogdan_iancu)
Summary: removing existing contact with ip:port like new contact
When SIP-client app lost network, other client can send REGISTER with the same IP:PORT. You can resolve this problem by usin this patch.
Comment By: Iñaki Baz Castillo (ibc_sf)
Date: 2009-08-05 13:02
Vladimir, you are "solving" a problem which is not a problem. This just
solves a *client* problem in your escenario but breaks RFC 3261
specifications since multiple AoR registrations are allowed from the same
I use Tinkle softphone which allows me having 10-50 different SIP accounts
registered at the same time, and it uses the same address:port for all.
This is perfectly valid according to RFC 3261 and your patch woudl break
I see. But such a auto-removal will affect devices with multiple lines.
1) device registers Line 1 (AOR1) with contact 10.10.10.10:1234
2) device registers Line 2 (AOR2) with contact 10.10.10.10:1234 ->usrloc
will remove the registration of the first line, as it has the same IP and
Comment By: Vladimir Kuznetsov (kuznetsov82)
Date: 2009-08-05 07:30
Step 1: CLIENT1 send REGISTER from 10.10.10.10:1234.
Step 2: CLIENT1 lost network
Step 3: CLIENT2 connecting to network and receive IP 10.10.10.10
Step 4: CLIENT2 connecting to SIP server with this IP and port 1234 (He
send REGISTER from 10.10.10.10:1234)
Step 5: somebody calls to CLIENT1 -> CLIENT2 has incoming call because he
has ip:port like CLIENT1 and REGISTER timeout for CLIENT1 was not expired.
This problem we have using mobile WiMAX network. This patch resolve this
when CLIENT2 send REGISTER, SIP server delete record for CLIENT1 from
database. We set flag db_mode=DB_ONLY for usrloc module and this patch can
be using only with this flag.
could you explain a bit more in details what the patch provides? an
example will be really helpful here.
I'm asking as the I want to be sure that whatever change you need, it is
not against the RFC3261 (on how the user registration and contact matching