[Serusers] Support for Gateway still on RFC2543

[Simon Miles]

RFC2543 states in the opening paragraph of section 2 :-

"SIP URLs are used within SIP messages to indicate the originator
   (From), current destination (Request-URI) and final recipient (To) of
   a SIP request...."

I am using a MultiTech 3010 and it certainly dials what is in the To
field. I assume that are using the 'final recipient' field and not the
URI. This does mean that any mangling of the URI is lost. If I mangle
the To field then the unique reference created from the To field
together with From and Call-ID fields is lost and the server does not
recognise any response form the gateway.

Is this gateway unique in it's interpretation of the RFC2543 ?

Simon

-----Original Message-----
From: serusers-bounces at iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces at lists.iptel.org] On
Behalf Of Klaus Darilion
Sent: 11 January 2005 23:18
To: Simon Miles
Cc: Serusers
Subject: Re: [Serusers] Support for Gateway still on RFC2543




Simon Miles wrote:
> Klaus,
> 
> Thanks for the feedback, but I still think it is a problem.
> 
> If I use the prefix command, this effects the URI field but not the To

> field. According to RFC2543 the To field is the one to use for 
> dialling when the INVITE gets to it's final destination.

Are you sure that the To: field is used fpr dialing - not the request 
URI? Can you point me to the relevant sections in RFC2543?

regards,
klaus

PS: Please CC to the list.

> 
> Hence the prefix command can't be used ! ! ! If I mangle the To field 
> then this effects the Call-ID so the SIP software sees a reply to the 
> INVITE as another message ! !
> 
> Simon
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Klaus Darilion [mailto:klaus.mailinglists at pernau.at]
> Sent: 10 January 2005 22:27
> To: Simon Miles
> Cc: serusers at lists.iptel.org
> Subject: Re: [Serusers] Support for Gateway still on RFC2543
> 
> 
> There should be no problem at all - RFC 3261 is compatible with the 
> old
> RFC. ser will look for the "lr" parameter in the via headers and will 
> use strict routing if the lr parameter is not found in the topmost via

> header.
> 
> regards,
> klaus
> 
> Simon Miles wrote:
> 
> 
>>Dear Community,
>> 
>>I still have gateways that confirm to RFC2543 and not the newer
>>RFC3261. This means the use of URI and To fields are different. Is 
>>there any way of telling sip_router that it needs to conform to the 
>>old spec ?
>> 
>>Thanks
>> 
>> 
>>Simon
>>
>>
>>
>>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>--
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Serusers mailing list
>>serusers at lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
> 
> 
> 

_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers at lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers