24 Sep
2004
24 Sep
'04
2:39 p.m.
Hello Greg,
Friday, September 24, 2004, 9:08:33 PM, you wrote:
GF> Keith,
GF> If I'm not mistaken, the From and To form part of the request's dialog
GF> 'key' along with the callid. To cannot be changed. If you did change
GF> To
GF> in the Level3 direction, when the request comes back you would have to
GF> replace the
GF> original 'To' from the UAC. I think this is, in effect, a psuedo b2bua.
GF> I agree with Jiri, the request uri is what is important. However, you
GF> know what they say about the 1000 pound gorilla :-)
GF> -g
GF> On Sep 24, 2004, at 11:13 AM, TSS Support wrote:
>
> From: "Jiri Kuthan" <jiri(a)iptel.org>
>> Then the provider is using VERY questionnable policy and ought to
>> look only
>> at request-uri.
>> * is a B2BUA -- it does not rewrite, it generates everything on its
>> own.
>> I personally think B2BUA is in most cases very suboptimal technology.
>> Scalability is an example, even if it does not matter in baby-sized
>> setups.
>> B2BUa security model is questionnable too.
>
>
> See, this is the problem. The provider is Level3. We are trying to use
> their Enhanced Local service rather than provide all of the toll
> calling over our trunks. They insist that there must be e.164
> formatted addresses in all header fields: From, To, and Request-URI.
> The first and last are easy. It seems the only solution to fix the
> middle one is to add a B2BUA or go in and patch SER. We don't want to
> add another point of failure, so it's likely we'll end up adding
> t_relay_to_level3() or something like that.
>
> -Keith, TSS
I'm not sure 100%, I'm not SIP guru, but as I remember dialog should
be identified by totag, fromtag and callid.
--
Best regards,
~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,.
Mike Tkachuk, ph:380-3433-47067
YES ISP, fx:380-3433-47067
Valova 17, mike|a|yes.net.ua
Kolomyia, www.yes.net.ua
Ukraine 78200 FWD: 66518
24.09.2004
ICQ# 57698805
MSN: mike_tkachuk|a|hotmail.com
~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,.