10 Dec
2013
10 Dec
'13
3:30 a.m.
Hi Camille,
i've changed it in GIT master to the following behaviour:
1) Lookup based on Contact
1a) compare Received-Info (IP, Port, Proto), if Contact was found
2) Fallback to the old behaviour (directly looking for IP, Port,
Proto) otherwise.
I've also changed the pcscf_assert_identity to do the lookup based on
the contact.
If you modify the INVITE for initial requests (e.g. use a
contact-alias "add_contact_alias()" for NAT-Traversal), you'll have to
apply the changes first before you can do the check. I've added a
warning, in case the lookup based on the contact fails.
I've tested the changes with CSipSimple, Snom phones and AVM FritzBox.
Kind regards,
Carsten
2013/11/27 Camille Oudot <camille.oudot(a)orange.com>om>:
Le Wed, 27 Nov 2013 18:30:32 +0100,
Carsten Bock <carsten(a)ng-voice.com> a écrit :
Hi Carsten,
--
Carsten Bock
CEO (Geschäftsführer)
ng-voice GmbH
Schomburgstr. 80
D-22767 Hamburg / Germany
http://www.ng-voice.com
mailto:carsten@ng-voice.com
Office +49 40 34927219
Fax +49 40 34927220
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Hamburg
Registergericht: Amtsgericht Hamburg, HRB 120189
Geschäftsführer: Carsten Bock
Ust-ID: DE279344284
Hier finden Sie unsere handelsrechtlichen Pflichtangaben:
http://www.ng-voice.com/imprint/
I've implemented it that way in order to cope
with NAT; however i can
probably simply replace it with the "add_contact_alias()" functions
from Nathelper...
so, maybe the pcscf_is_registered() function could:
* retrieve the pcontact record in O(1) using the Contact URI hash
[should pcscf_is_registered() fail if no there is no Contact
header? Could the Contact URI somehow change between REGISTER and
other requests?]
* compare the request's source ip & port with those stored in the
pcontact record
* if both steps succeed, return true
This should prevent performances issues if a lot of contacts are
registered. Besides, this would allow to differentiate several UACs
using the same network connection (as they very likely would provide
different contact URIs).
What do you think of this?
Cheers,
--
Camille