30 Jun
2013
30 Jun
'13
12:41 a.m.
Yes, but there's a big difference between SIP over TCP and SIP over Websocket over TCP. :) Technically I'm guessing the TCP and WS transports share the same TCP port bind? That in itself would be a good reason why it shouldn't be a separate profile. Technically impossible to have different profiles handling different transports on the same port. Anyway the point was profiles are linked to a ip:port rather than a specific transport. On Thursday, June 27, 2013, Vik Killa wrote:
Doesn't WS work OVER TCP?
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 7:07 AM, Steven Ayre <steveayre@gmail.com<javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'steveayre@gmail.com');>
wrote:
+1
We already have profiles binding to both UDP and TCP - why not WS too? :)
-Steve
<snip>