[Serusers] Loose Route

[Martin Koenig]

Hello, 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul 
> [mailto:pelinescu-onciul at fokus.fraunhofer.de] 
> Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 4:24 PM
> To: Martin Koenig
> Cc: serusers at lists.iptel.org
> Subject: Re: [Serusers] Loose Route
> 
> On Oct 21, 2004 at 11:33, Martin Koenig 
> <martin.koenig at toplink-plannet.de> wrote:
> > Hello,
> > 
> > If a ser 0.8.14 named "server" receives the following message:
> > 
> > ACK sip:final at destination:5060 SIP/2.0.
> > Route: 
> <sip:route at server:5060;ftag=0006283e0a6800774f26ee45-1c475c78;lr=on>.
> > 
> > And loose_route() is called on that server, shouldn't it 
> return true? Or is
> > loose_route() only true if there is another Route Header 
> field left after
> > removing self?
> 
> Yes, it would have been true if there was another route header.
> In fact loose_route returns true only if the message was "routed"
> according to the route headers. If there was no change in the message
> destination (either request uri or the destination uri), it returns
> false.
> > 
> > To my understanding, loose_route should return true if 
> there was a Route
> > header field removed by the function, so that we know we 
> have reached the
> > end of a server chain and can t_relay the request without 
> further local
> > processing.
> 
> If you are at the end of a server chain it will return false, because
> the message will go to the request uri and not to an uri 
> extracted from
> a route header.

Okay, I understand. Is there another way to distinguish between a message
whose sip-uri should be processed and one that should just be forwarded
because it has reached the end of a loose routing signalling chain?

The problem is that the R-URI is defined by the end devices contact field
and might contain anything, and just using uri==myself to determine whether
the request should be forwarded or not opens holes in the design, because
the server would basically be an open relay.

Best regards,
Martin