[Serusers] UAs not respecting Record Route

[Jiri Kuthan]

At 10:11 PM 2/15/2004, Samy Touati wrote:
>Hi,
>
>Yes UA1 does send an ACK to ser, but the request URI contains the address of
>UA3 
>and the route heard contains the address of ser. 

Samy,

that's all ok too since the UAC is loose router (you find more information
in RFC3261; the basic concept of loose routing is not to stir target
address in request-uri with record-routing information). The other case
you referred to (proxy in r-uri, destination in Route) is ok too, it
is RFC2543 strict-routing UAC, whose messages should be routed eventually
the same way. That's probably the most confusing SIP issue. 

>With this scenario, ser
>routes the request to the initial called UA (UA2) instead of going to UA3.

That's not ok -- I don't know yet why, it may be an error in SER: both the
ACK (frame #1151) and config files look reasonable to me, just the outgoing
ACK (frame #1155) is misconcepted somehow: 1) it includes wrong URI, 2)
transport destination is different from that inRoute in #1151 and 3) there
is no P_Hint at all (there should be some -- if you are using the script
you send me, there is append_hf(P-Hint) before each t_relay....) -- neither
does the forwarded INVITE (#513) include some which really surprises me.
Are you sure the message dumps were generating using exactly the same config 
file you sent?


-jiri

(BTW -- better try to filter the traffic samples you send -- it is 
ok if I filter the hundreds of messages to www.babycenter.com, but 
you might have some privacy issues ;)