17 Jan
2017
17 Jan
'17
8:22 p.m.
Hello,
indeed, the Record-Route address must be local to the server adding it,
asking to retrieve the subsequent requests within the same dialog.
Adding the address in Record-Route of other node in the network doesn't
make much sense, especially when there is no relation between them.
I have seen SIP stacks adding Route header with the IP of the outbound
proxy for initial requests, which is also disputable in terms of how
valid it is, but at least is for the current request sent anyhow to that
hope, not requesting a node to send traffic to another node.
Likely a bug or misconfiguration in the SBC.
Cheers,
Daniel
On 17/01/2017 19:40, Andres wrote:
Hi,
I am troubleshooting some strange call setup problems using an
Edgewater Networks SBC. A couple of Polycom phones sit behind the SBC
and they connect to a SIP Server in the cloud. The SBC is in
passthrough mode.
What I see that I am not sure about is:
INVITE from SIP Server to SBC IP (no Record-Route header...so far no
surprise here)
INVITE from SBC to Phone (Record-Route header inserted by SBC but with
the IP of the SIP Server)
I do not think the SBC is supposed to add a Record-Route header with
the IP of the remote SIP Server. I think It should only be allowed to
add Record-Route headers with its own IP. Does that sound right?
The RFC lists the usage as:
"20.30 Record-Route
The Record-Route header field is inserted by proxies in a request to
force future requests in the dialog to be routed through the proxy."
It says nothing about being able to arbitrarily force future requests
to go through a remote IP.
Please advise.
Thanks,
--
Technical Support
_______________________________________________
SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list
sr-users(a)lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
www.twitter.com/miconda -- www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
Kamailio World Conference - May 8-10, 2017 - www.kamailioworld.com