Hi!
I'd like to implement P2P presence and extension monitoring for my SIP network.
Our users register by using a numeric extension (e.g. sip:226050@wu-wien.ac.at), but most of the time, they are contacted using a user alias that looks like their email-address (e.g. sip:bergolth@wu-wien.ac.at). So the addresses stored in their buddy-lists won't be the "real"-SIP-URI of the users.
Will there be a problem if I translate those aliases on subscription, so that a user may also subscribe for the presence of a user alias?
If I rewrite SUBSCRIBE requests to use the "real" SIP-URI on subscription, the following NOTIFY messages will contain the wrong URI in the From-header and in the pidf body. But maybe this won't be a problem, since the watcher can assign it to the correct username because the NOTIFY belongs to the same dialog as the SUBSCRIBE?
Will the user agents be able to correctly assign those notifications to their contacts?
Any experiences with this?
Cheers, --leo
Hello,
On 08/28/08 09:49, Alexander 'Leo' Bergolth wrote:
Hi!
I'd like to implement P2P presence and extension monitoring for my SIP network.
is this UA to UA presence notification or are you using presence server?
Cheers, Daniel
Our users register by using a numeric extension (e.g. sip:226050@wu-wien.ac.at), but most of the time, they are contacted using a user alias that looks like their email-address (e.g. sip:bergolth@wu-wien.ac.at). So the addresses stored in their buddy-lists won't be the "real"-SIP-URI of the users.
Will there be a problem if I translate those aliases on subscription, so that a user may also subscribe for the presence of a user alias?
If I rewrite SUBSCRIBE requests to use the "real" SIP-URI on subscription, the following NOTIFY messages will contain the wrong URI in the From-header and in the pidf body. But maybe this won't be a problem, since the watcher can assign it to the correct username because the NOTIFY belongs to the same dialog as the SUBSCRIBE?
Will the user agents be able to correctly assign those notifications to their contacts?
Any experiences with this?
Cheers, --leo
On 08/28/2008 08:55 AM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
On 08/28/08 09:49, Alexander 'Leo' Bergolth wrote:
I'd like to implement P2P presence and extension monitoring for my SIP network.
is this UA to UA presence notification or are you using presence server?
This is UA to UA presence.
But I'm interested in both cases. I'd like to start with UA to UA because this is easier to implement. I am also considering switching to a presence-server once it works.
Cheers, --leo
Alexander 'Leo' Bergolth schrieb:
On 08/28/2008 08:55 AM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
On 08/28/08 09:49, Alexander 'Leo' Bergolth wrote:
I'd like to implement P2P presence and extension monitoring for my SIP network.
is this UA to UA presence notification or are you using presence server?
This is UA to UA presence.
But I'm interested in both cases. I'd like to start with UA to UA because this is easier to implement. I am also considering switching to a presence-server once it works.
The SIP URIs in From header of the NOTIFY should not matter (except the client is buggy).
Regarding the URI in the PIDF body actually I do not know.
regards klaus
just a hint on this project if you are using nat...
make sure that your subscribe and notifies have a reply route set for them. In this reply route, you need to invoke nat helper and fix_natted_contact or your replies to subscribe and notifies will have a natted private contact address. If this private address reaches a phone in a reply (especially polycoms) then the phone will prefer the new location of the contact over the explicit location detailed in your subscribe list. If this happens, phones will appear to lose reg until the requests fail and the phone reissues its subscribe/notify to the explixcit address it has configured for the contact.
On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 4:44 AM, Klaus Darilion < klaus.mailinglists@pernau.at> wrote:
Alexander 'Leo' Bergolth schrieb:
On 08/28/2008 08:55 AM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
On 08/28/08 09:49, Alexander 'Leo' Bergolth wrote:
I'd like to implement P2P presence and extension monitoring for my SIP network.
is this UA to UA presence notification or are you using presence server?
This is UA to UA presence.
But I'm interested in both cases. I'd like to start with UA to UA because this is easier to implement. I am also considering switching to a presence-server once it works.
The SIP URIs in From header of the NOTIFY should not matter (except the client is buggy).
Regarding the URI in the PIDF body actually I do not know.
regards klaus
Users mailing list Users@lists.kamailio.org http://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
-
Alex G -
Alexander 'Leo' Bergolth -
Daniel-Constantin Mierla -
Klaus Darilion