[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Linphone-developers] Re: NAT ip/name bug
From: |
strk |
Subject: |
[Linphone-developers] Re: NAT ip/name bug |
Date: |
Sat, 18 Feb 2006 18:26:19 +0100 |
Sorry, I got other feedback. The antisip guy told me
SDP *requires* FQDN to be handled by SIP servers, so
I've lost my bet: it's not a linphone bug (hurray).
He also said that lots of providers doesn't respect
that requirement, but I guess we can't do anything
from withing linphone about this... nothing worth
the trouble I mean (like adding a configuration item
expressing the will to resolve before sending).
--strk;
On Sat, Feb 18, 2006 at 05:58:50PM +0100, strk wrote:
> I've had this problem in the past:
> If a name (rather then an IP) is set for the NAT configuration
> item linphone will usually fail to succeed in a dialog
> estabilishment.
>
> This has been reported by antisip.com :
>
> Sems[7839]: Error: (AmRtpStream.cpp)(setRAddr)(419): address not valid
> (host: my.hostname.net)
> Sems[7839]: Error: (AmSession.cpp)(run)(209): invalid address
> Sems[7839]: Error: (AmSession.cpp)(run)(217): 500 unexpected exception.
>
>
> Note that my.hostname.net is a *valid* DNS (masqueraded for privacy
> reasons).
>
> I don't know if it should be antisip.com accepting that as
> an address or linphone resolving before sending it.
> What I know is that I had the same problem with other
> proxies as well, so I'd bet on a linphone bug.
>
> --strk;