25 Feb
2005
25 Feb
'05
8:39 a.m.
Not entirely true!
Although RFC3261 section 19.1.1 did `indicate' ";lr=on", section 25.1 have
the following BNF notation.
uri-parameters = *( ";" uri-parameter)
uri-parameter = transport-param / user-param / method-param
/ ttl-param / maddr-param / lr-param / other-param
lr-param = "lr"
other-param = pname [ "=" pvalue ]
So ";lr" is the correct BNF. However, I would agree that ";lr=on" is a
more
elegant approach.
BTW, SER accept both, and generate ";lr" by default. To get SER generate
";lr=on", check the enable_full_lr parameter in rr module.
Zeus
-----Original Message-----
From: serusers-bounces(a)lists.iptel.org
[mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org] On Behalf Of Java Rockx
Sent: Friday, 25 February 2005 4:06 PM
To: serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
Subject: [Serusers] ;lr=on> versus ;lr> -- which is RFC3261 compliant?
Hi all.
We have a partner with a Sonus box that we use for PSTN termination.
Their Sonus box produces suspect Record-Route headers. Can
anyone tell me if it is compliant with RFC3261?
A sample header that I receive looks like this:
Record-Route: <sip:xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:5060;lr>
And I discovered that Asterisk-1.0.2 seems to not properly
handle these messages so it does strict routing rather than
loose routing.
Greg greger(a)teigre.com was kind enough to point me to RFC3261
Section 19.1.1 which seems to indicate that ;lr> should be
;lr=on> for complance.
Is this correct?
Regards,
Paul
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers