Re: [SR-Users] Should I ignore Route header in ACK?

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

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

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

> 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

> > 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

> > 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

> > 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

> > and another softphone (as UA) because of it both sends ACK to the

> 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