[sr-dev] - ims_registrar_scscf: fix multiple contacts in 200OK

Aleksandar Yosifov a.v.yosifov at gmail.com
Tue Jun 14 16:57:25 CEST 2022


Hi all,
The changes were made a long time ago. What I can say is that I confirm
with both of you. I will add a new option and return the original behaviour
following the RFC.

BR

On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 11:12 PM Henning Westerholt <hw at gilawa.com> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I think you are right; a registrar should respond with multiple bindings
> in case of multiple bindings.
>
> There might be a good reason for this change, maybe Aleksandar can comment.
> But with my current information I would say it should be probably made
> configurable; keeping the previous behaviour according to the standard as
> default.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Henning
>
> --
> Henning Westerholt - https://skalatan.de/blog/
> Kamailio services - https://gilawa.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sr-dev <sr-dev-bounces at lists.kamailio.org> On Behalf Of Scherney
> Theodor
> Sent: Friday, June 10, 2022 9:34 AM
> To: sr-dev at lists.kamailio.org
> Subject: [sr-dev] - ims_registrar_scscf: fix multiple contacts in 200OK
>
> Dear developer,
>
> we have a question about the reasons of the changes made in this commit to
> Kamailio module ims_registrar_scscf
>
> commit 23341c60519bd3e8eb91974c7aca0b283735665e
> Author: Aleksandar Yosifov alexyosifov at gmail.com
> Date:   Thu May 7 15:51:34 2020 +0300
> ims_registrar_scscf: fix multiple contacts in 200OK
> - Prevent sending of multiple contacts in 200OK reply
>   for UE Re-Registration. Now S-CSCF replies with the
>   exact contact for Re-Registration.
>
> We read in Section 10.3 "Processing REGISTER Requests" of the RFC3261 (
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3261#section-10.3 ) :
>
> 8. The registrar returns a 200 (OK) response.  The response MUST contain
> Contact header field values enumerating all current bindings.
>
> We have a test case where for one single IMPU there are two different
> consecutive REGISTER using different combination of IP/port.
> Running our testcase on a version previous your commit, the 200OK of the
> second registration lists 2 bindings (correctly, as we expect by the RFC).
> After your commit, in this testcase, the 200OK lists only one binding. It
> seems that the changes in your commit do not match the RFC specifications.
> Can you please explain why these changes have been made?
>
> Thanks and Kind Regards,
>
> _______________________________________________
> Kamailio (SER) - Development Mailing List sr-dev at lists.kamailio.org
> https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> Kamailio (SER) - Development Mailing List
> sr-dev at lists.kamailio.org
> https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kamailio.org/pipermail/sr-dev/attachments/20220614/791af376/attachment-0001.htm>


More information about the sr-dev mailing list