Re: SIP Dialog Match
"Karunesh Sharma" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.sip |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Dale: Please see following trace 172.16.31.30 -> 10.0.4.6 SIP/SDP Request: INVITE sip:[email protected], with session description 192.168.4.67 -> 172.16.31.30 SIP Status: 100 Trying 192.168.4.67 -> 172.16.31.30 SIP/SDP Status: 183 Session Progress, with session description 172.16.31.30 -> 192.168.4.67 SIP Request: PRACK sip:[email protected]:5060 192.168.4.67 -> 172.16.31.30 SIP Status: 200 OK 192.168.4.67 -> 172.16.31.30 SIP/SDP Status: 200 OK, with session description 172.16.31.30 -> 192.168.4.67 SIP Request: ACK sip:[email protected]:5060 192.168.4.67 -> 172.16.31.30 SIP Request: BYE sip:[email protected]:5060 172.16.31.30 (read as 'A') sent INVITE to 10.0.4.6 (read as 'B'). But somehow 192.168.4.67 (read as 'C') responds. Now 'A' knows nothing about 'C', but still based on SIP dialog identifiers 'A' accepts that. So is there any way to challenge or deny such rouge responses? I was reading one draft (http://ietfreport.isoc.org/idref/draft-cao-sip-response-identity/) but that is expired. K$ _______________________ -----Original Message----- From: Dale Worley [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, August 03, 2009 8:55 PM To: Karunesh Sharma Cc: aayush bhatnagar; [email protected] Subject: RE: [Sip] SIP Dialog Match On Mon, 2009-08-03 at 20:49 +0530, Karunesh Sharma wrote: > What about sending INVITE to 'B' & getting all responses (which > includes provisional response 1xx) from 'C'? I'm not sure what you mean. Dale _______________________________________________ Sip mailing list https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use [email protected] for questions on current sip Use [email protected] for new developments on the application of sip