[Serusers] Loose routing question

[Klaus Darilion]

Jan Janak wrote:
> 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.

That's the point. But as I do not want people to use my proxy as 
outboundproxy I do not allow loose_routing of out-of-dialog requests.

regards
klaus