[SIPForum-discussion] Logical Recipient of REGISTER and INVITE
Jerry Richards
jerryr at tonecommander.com
Tue Sep 30 14:36:32 UTC 2008
Okay, in that case, I would like to re-phrase/simplify my question as
follows:
For a User Agent using SIP-URI formats, is the "logical recipient" in the
Request-URI always the same for REGISTER and INVITE methods?
Best Regards,
Jerry
_____
From: Sandeep Mohapatra [mailto:sandeep01it22 at yahoo.co.in]
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 11:41 PM
To: Jerry Richards
Cc: discussion at sipforum.org
Subject: Re: [SIPForum-discussion] Logical Recipient of REGISTER and INVITE
Hi Jerry,
The domain name of RURI and To Header is not necessarily to be the same. To
: header contains the end destinations address. RURI contains the immidiate
destination's(UAS) address.
If both the proxy and the UAS reside in the same domain then the SIP URI
domain of To and RURI will be the same. Let me know in case you need more
clarifications.
Regards,
Sandeep
ARICENT
--- On Mon, 29/9/08, Jerry Richards <jerryr at tonecommander.com> wrote:
From: Jerry Richards <jerryr at tonecommander.com>
Subject: [SIPForum-discussion] Logical Recipient of REGISTER and INVITE
To: discussion at sipforum.org
Date: Monday, 29 September, 2008, 8:36 PM
Hello,
When using SIP-URI formats, is the "logical recipient" in the
Request-URI
and To-Header URI, always the same for REGISTER, and INVITE methods?
By logical recipient, I mean, the domain portion of the following:
"sip:AoR at domain".
Best Regards,
Jerry
_______________________________________________
This is the SIP Forum discussion mailing list
TO UNSUBSCRIBE, or edit your delivery options, please visit
http://sipforum.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Post to the list at discussion at sipforum.org
_____
Unlimited freedom, unlimited storage. Get
<http://in.rd.yahoo.com/tagline_mail_2/*http://help.yahoo.com/l/in/yahoo/mai
l/yahoomail/tools/tools-08.html/> it now
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sipforum.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20080930/9eb9e4d3/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the discussion
mailing list