19 Jan
2005
19 Jan
'05
4:55 p.m.
The gateway should not use To, it should use the Request-URI as the
final destination. The reason is that the value put into the To header
field is generated by the calling user agent and it is not guaranteed
that the final recipient (gateway in this case) would know how to
interpret it.
This is different with the Request-URI since this is generated by the
previous hop (usually the proxy in front of the gateway) and it can make
sure that the Request-URI is in the format the gateway would recognize.
For example, if I create alias foo(a)iptel.org that would be mapped to
+123456(a)iptel.org and call sip:foo@iptel.org, my user agent would put
foo(a)iptel.org in To, but the proxy server would rewrite
sip:foo@iptel.org in the Request-URI into sip:+123456@iptel.org. The
gateway would not know how to handle sip:foo@iptel.org, but would know
how to handle sip:+123456@iptel.org
Jan.
On 11-01 23:26, Simon Miles wrote:
RFC2543 states in the opening paragraph of section 2
:-
"SIP URLs are used within SIP messages to indicate the originator
(From), current destination (Request-URI) and final recipient (To) of
a SIP request...."
I am using a MultiTech 3010 and it certainly dials what is in the To
field. I assume that are using the 'final recipient' field and not the
URI. This does mean that any mangling of the URI is lost. If I mangle
the To field then the unique reference created from the To field
together with From and Call-ID fields is lost and the server does not
recognise any response form the gateway.
Is this gateway unique in it's interpretation of the RFC2543 ?
Simon
-----Original Message-----
From: serusers-bounces(a)iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org] On
Behalf Of Klaus Darilion
Sent: 11 January 2005 23:18
To: Simon Miles
Cc: Serusers
Subject: Re: [Serusers] Support for Gateway still on RFC2543
Simon Miles wrote:
Klaus,
Thanks for the feedback, but I still think it is a problem.
If I use the prefix command, this effects the URI field but not the To
field. According to RFC2543 the To field is the
one to use for
dialling when the INVITE gets to it's final destination.
Are you sure that the To: field is used fpr dialing - not the request
URI? Can you point me to the relevant sections in RFC2543?
regards,
klaus
PS: Please CC to the list.
Hence the prefix command can't be used ! ! ! If I mangle the To field
then this effects the Call-ID so the SIP software sees a reply to the
INVITE as another message ! !
Simon
-----Original Message-----
From: Klaus Darilion [mailto:klaus.mailinglists@pernau.at]
Sent: 10 January 2005 22:27
To: Simon Miles
Cc: serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
Subject: Re: [Serusers] Support for Gateway still on RFC2543
There should be no problem at all - RFC 3261 is compatible with the
old
RFC. ser will look for the "lr" parameter in the via headers and will
use strict routing if the lr parameter is not found in the topmost via
header.
regards,
klaus
Simon Miles wrote:
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers Dear Community,
I still have gateways that confirm to RFC2543 and not the newer
RFC3261. This means the use of URI and To fields are different. Is
there any way of telling sip_router that it needs to conform to the
old spec ?
Thanks
Simon
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers