[Serusers] Loose routing question

[Jan Janak]

On 04-05-2005 17:06, Klaus Darilion wrote:
> Juha Heinanen wrote:
> >Klaus Darilion writes:
> >
> > > Out of curiosity, how do you handle out-of dialog requests with a 
> > > pre-set route? If I would allow them, I would handle it this way:
> >
> >something like that, but of course you would need to allow also requests
> >to your local users from foreign users (unless you have a walled garden).
> 
> ACK. But still I see no reason why an incoming call for example will use 
> a pre-route set?

  From RFC3261:

  When a provider wishes to configure a UA with an outbound proxy, 
  it is RECOMMENDED that this be done by providing it with a
  pre-existing route set with a single URI, that of the outbound proxy.

  And the reason why:

    This ensures that outbound proxies that do not add Record-Route
    header field values will drop out of the path of subsequent
    requests.  It allows endpoints that cannot resolve the first Route
    URI to delegate that task to an outbound proxy.

 
 This is what the spec says. Most likely it won't work this way because
 most implementation would use the outbound proxy for all messages, but
 that's another story.

   Jan.