[Serusers] MSRTC DLL Bug with SER --- More information, Possibly SER not RFC 3261 compliant??

[Andrew Mee]

See the following threads: There are some logs in these as well as some 
examples of what does and doesn't work.
http://lists.iptel.org/pipermail/serusers/2004-August/010582.html
http://lists.iptel.org/pipermail/serusers/2004-August/010708.html
If this isn't enough info I can get some more for you
I'm not the only one with this issue ;)
I use the example config with Proxy_auth and record_route enabled.

Andrew

Jiri Kuthan wrote:

>please send your config file and complete message dumps. Actually
>SER should handle obsoleted RFC2543 record-routing too.
>
>-jiri
>
>At 04:49 AM 8/23/2004, Andrew Mee wrote:
>>From MS RTC Newsgroup:
>  
>
>>...The issue here is that the BYE sent by test1 gets routed back to test1. This
>>is because RTC1.2 does strict routing. However, on the proxy on the other
>>hand does only loose routing and does not provide backward compatibility as
>>provisioned in RFC 3261. Test1 receives this BYE out of the blue and a
>>result sends a 481....
>>
>>According to RFC 3261:
>>
>>16.4 Route Information Preprocessing
>>
>> The proxy MUST inspect the Request-URI of the request.  If the
>> Request-URI of the request contains a value this proxy previously
>> placed into a Record-Route header field (see Section 16.6 item 4),
>> the proxy MUST replace the Request-URI in the request with the last
>> value from the Route header field, and remove that value from the
>> Route header field.  The proxy MUST then proceed as if it received
>> this modified request.
>>
>>    This will only happen when the element sending the request to the
>>    proxy (which may have been an endpoint) is a strict router.  This
>>    rewrite on receive is necessary to enable backwards compatibility
>>    with those elements.  It also allows elements following this
>>    specification to preserve the Request-URI through strict-routing
>>    proxies (see Section 12.2.1.1).
>>
>>    This requirement does not obligate a proxy to keep state in order
>>    to detect URIs it previously placed in Record-Route header fields.
>>    Instead, a proxy need only place enough information in those URIs
>>    to recognize them as values it provided when they later appear.
>>
>>......
>>
>>
>>I am trying to write a patch to fix this and I am having limited success, perhaps someone would be better at this?
>>
>>-- 
>>Andrew Mee
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Serusers mailing list
>>serusers at lists.iptel.org
>>http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
>>    
>>
>
>--
>Jiri Kuthan            http://iptel.org/~jiri/ 
>
>  
>


-- 
Andrew Mee