1 Jul
2018
1 Jul
'18
5:50 p.m.
Alex thank you for the response
So all that I found is correct and known looks like correct.
Then last question confusing me - why some UAC's ignoring it.
Looks like they are just have not full RFC interpretation but as i beleive
FreeSwitch have good SIP binding with almost full RFC compatable
question is: Any guess why this can happen?
Because on my side - when kamailio as one more proxy between porvider and
UAC all works correctly (means kamailio not ignores Route header and it is
right behaivor).
Looks like this happens when only 1 Request route arrives at the response
from UAS...
2018-07-01 10:28 GMT+03:00 Alex Balashov <abalashov(a)evaristesys.com>om>:
Hi,
Record-Route from the UAS in the 2xx response to the initial INVITE
transaction should be recast a Route set in in-dialog messages
originating from the caller, of which an end-to-end ACK is one.
The next Route header should be followed for reaching the next hop on the
network and transport level. The request URI should cosmetically be
equivalent to the Contact URI of the far end, but the Route header will
cause a deviation in where the request is actually sent.
This is entirely appropriate and correct. Nobody should be ignoring a
Route header.
-- Alex
On Sun, Jul 01, 2018 at 10:27:00AM +0300, Yuriy Gorlichenko wrote:
Hi
I know that this is not question too much close to the kamialio users but
mostly losed to the RFC specifiacations but this community looks like
pretty much close to it that is why I want to ask this question here,
that's why sorry and thanks for help in this question:
I have a situation when provider sends me 200 response with Request-Route
header and changed contact header:
Means response comes from
1.1.1.1:5060
Request-Route contains:
1.1.1.1:5060
But Contact contains:
1.1.1.1:5061
My ACK (handled by kamailio) goes to the 1.1.1.1:5060 as it setted up at
the Route Hedaer of ACK (because of Request-Route)
but provider says me that i should use Contact for the ACK
I was surprised because of
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3261#section-12.2.1.1
and
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3261#section-8.1.2
Says that I should use Route header for reaching destination
But I was surprised second time when tested this scenario with FreeSwitch
and another softphone (as UA) because of it both sends ACK to the based
on
Contact address and ignores Route
I just wanna ask if I missed some scenario in the RFC when it is
described
to ignore Route header for the UA
(I know that I use kamailio on my case as proxy server but should
understand finally who should make changes with packet handling)
Thanks one more time for the resonses and sorry one more time for the
goal
of this question that belongs to the kamailio
just partially
_______________________________________________
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
--
Alex Balashov | Principal | Evariste Systems LLC
Tel: +1-706-510-6800 / +1-800-250-5920 (toll-free)
Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/, http://www.csrpswitch.com/
_______________________________________________
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users