Re: [Ekiga-devel-list] alien registrar problem

[Eugen Dedu <Eugen Dedu pu-pm univ-fcomte fr>]

Michael Rickmann wrote:
> Christian Schäfer schrieb:
> > Damien Sandras wrote:
> > > OK, first a few remarks :
> > > - having private IP addresses in SIP PDUs in perfectly legal and
> > > conform ;
> > > - in your logs, I see Ekiga puts both IP : private and public in the
> > > contact field, this is also legal and the sip registrar at lund1.de
> > > should not complain about it as there is also the public IP (with high
> > > priority as q=1)
> >
> > By the way, today I stumbled over an article in the current German's 
> > Linux Magazine issue, where a bunch of voip clients gets tested. They 
> > also observe this issue concerning the private IP address which makes 
> > it impossible to connect to some (german) providers like 1&1 and GMX 
> > with ekiga.
> Well, in a way these providers sell their phone numbers and they save 
> money when they can not be used. But otherwise I cannot see any reason 
> but achieving acceptance of standards why Ekiga - actually it seems Opal 
> - behaves this way. I think trying with public and private IP first, if 
> failure trying again with public only, if failure give in could be 
> implemented.

I see a commit in opal which might interest you:
2009-07-13 06:33  rjongbloed

	* src/sip/handlers.cxx: Added special case of m_contactAddress *=
	  "%LIMITED" for SIP registration which will only fill the
	  "Contact" field of the REGISTER command with addresses that are
	  on the same interface as where the packet is being sent.
	
	  This is to address STUPID registrars that refuse the entire
	  registration when extra contact addresses are included that it
	  doesn't like, e.g. the private address. Correct behaviour is to
	  return what it DOES like, not refuse registration completely.

--
Eugen