[Serusers] ATA186 v3.1.1 LooseRoute logic

[Ezequiel Colombo]

Ok, thanks Andrei !!! Cisco anounce the loose routing implementation in the
release notes of v3.1.1 of ATA firmware.
I must open a case to solve this bug (take Request-URI from Contact:) for
next releases.

Thanks.
Ezequiel Colombo

----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul" <pelinescu-onciul at fokus.fraunhofer.de>
To: "Ezequiel Colombo" <ecolombo at arcotel.net>
Cc: <serusers at lists.iptel.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2004 1:35 PM
Subject: Re: [Serusers] ATA186 v3.1.1 LooseRoute logic


> On Jul 15, 2004 at 13:12, Ezequiel Colombo <ecolombo at arcotel.net> wrote:
> > I are testing the last (v3.1.1) version of SIP firmware for Cisco ATA186
and
> > see some
> > bug or misimplementation of loose routing logic. I want known if my
> > interpretation of
> > the loose routing are correct.
> >
> > The test scenario is:
> >
> >  U1(ATA186)  -- callto -- U2(X-Lite)
> >
> >  U1 = 200.80.35.6:25263
> >  SER= 200.80.35.17:5060
> >  U2 = 200.80.35.6:26198
> >
> >  After the answer (200 OK) from X-Lite the Cisco ATA 186 send a
different
> >  ACK message with version 3.1.0 and 3.1.0 firmware. The ACK sent by
version
> >  3.1.1 never reack X-Lite causing it to re-send the 200 OK message.
> >
> > In version v3.1.0 the ACK to a 200OK is sent by ATA with URI equal to
the
> > proxy address
> > as indicated by Record-Route in the previously received 200OK, and with
a
> > Route: header
> > equal to the URI of the remote party (U2). With this SER perform
> > loose-routing, take the
> > URI in the Route: hf and sent the message to U2.
>
> This is actually strict routing.
> >
> > In version v3.1.1 the ACK to a 200OK is sent by ATA with URI equal to
the U2
> > address
> > (without port information) and a Route: header indicating the URI of the
> > proxy. So is
> > expected that SER perform loose-routing taking the URI in the Route:
header
> > and send
> > the message to itself in this case (Route contain address of proxy
instead
> > of U2) but
> > not, the loose-routing is not performed for unknown reason (may be ftag
or
> > lr ?) and
> > the message is sent to the original uri (U2 ip without port) and never
> > arrive because
> > the U2 endpoint are listen in other port (26198 instead of 5060).
>
> This is "normal" loose routing (you don't touch the uri, but you send
> the message to the route address). It seems they use loose routing in
> this version.
> However you are right about the port bug. The uri must contain the same
> uri as in the 200 Ok Contact, including the port.
>
>
> Andrei
>