Yes, but there&#39;s a big difference between SIP over TCP and SIP over Websocket over TCP. :)<div><br></div><div>Technically I&#39;m guessing the TCP and WS transports share the same TCP port bind? That in itself would be a good reason why it shouldn&#39;t be a separate profile. Technically impossible to have different profiles handling different transports on the same port.<span></span></div>
<div><br></div><div>Anyway the point was profiles are linked to a ip:port rather than a specific transport.</div><div><br></div><div><br><br><br>On Thursday, June 27, 2013, Vik Killa  wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">Doesn&#39;t WS work OVER TCP?<br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 7:07 AM, Steven Ayre <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="javascript:_e({}, &#39;cvml&#39;, &#39;steveayre@gmail.com&#39;);" target="_blank">steveayre@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br>

<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">+1<div><br></div><div>We already have profiles binding to both <span></span>UDP and TCP - why not WS too? :)<div><br></div>

<div>-Steve</div><div><div><div><br></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>&lt;snip&gt; </div></div></div></div>
</blockquote></div>