25 Feb
2005
25 Feb
'05
7:05 a.m.
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
25 Feb
25 Feb
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
9:01 a.m.
I suppose then that Asterisk just isn't RFC3261 compliant -- which
doesn't surprise me.
Thanks for pointing me to section 25.1
Regards,
Paul
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 17:39:49 +1100, Zeus Ng <zeus.ng(a)isquare.com.au> wrote:
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
8:08 p.m.
New subject: [Serusers] ;lr=on> versus ;lr> -- which is RFC3261 compliant?
Both are correct, ;lr (without =true) is a more intutive choice as it is
used in all specs. Implementations which can't deal with either of them are
to be fixed. SER can choose either, but chance is high that each choice will
not work with some subset of imperfect implementations.
-jiri
At 06:05 AM 2/25/2005, Java Rockx wrote:
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
--
Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/
7239
days inactive
7239
days old
3 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Java Rockx -
Jiri Kuthan -
Zeus Ng