[SR-Users] Should I ignore Route header in ACK?

[Yuriy Gorlichenko]

Alex thank you for the response
So all that I found is correct and known looks like correct.
Then last question confusing me - why some UAC's ignoring it.
Looks like they are just have not full RFC interpretation but as i beleive
FreeSwitch have good SIP binding with almost full RFC compatable

question is: Any guess why this can happen?
Because on my side - when kamailio as one more proxy between porvider and
UAC all works correctly (means kamailio not ignores Route header and it is
right behaivor).
Looks like this happens when only 1 Request route arrives at the response
from UAS...

2018-07-01 10:28 GMT+03:00 Alex Balashov <abalashov at evaristesys.com>:

> Hi,
>
> Record-Route from the UAS in the 2xx response to the initial INVITE
> transaction should be recast a Route set in in-dialog messages
> originating from the caller, of which an end-to-end ACK is one.
>
> The next Route header should be followed for reaching the next hop on the
> network and transport level. The request URI should cosmetically be
> equivalent to the Contact URI of the far end, but the Route header will
> cause a deviation in where the request is actually sent.
>
> This is entirely appropriate and correct. Nobody should be ignoring a
> Route header.
>
> -- Alex
>
> On Sun, Jul 01, 2018 at 10:27:00AM +0300, Yuriy Gorlichenko wrote:
>
> > Hi
> > I know that this is not question too much close to the kamialio users but
> > mostly losed to the RFC specifiacations but this community looks like
> > pretty much close to it that is why I want to ask this question here,
> > that's why sorry and thanks for help in this question:
> >
> > I have a situation when provider sends me 200 response with Request-Route
> > header and changed contact header:
> >
> > Means response comes from
> > 1.1.1.1:5060
> > Request-Route contains:
> > 1.1.1.1:5060
> > But Contact contains:
> > 1.1.1.1:5061
> >
> > My ACK (handled by kamailio) goes to the 1.1.1.1:5060 as it setted up at
> > the Route Hedaer of ACK (because of Request-Route)
> >
> > but provider says me that i should use Contact for the ACK
> >
> >
> > I was surprised because of
> > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3261#section-12.2.1.1
> > and
> > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3261#section-8.1.2
> >
> > Says that I should use Route header for reaching destination
> > But I was surprised second time when tested this scenario with FreeSwitch
> > and another softphone (as UA) because of it both sends ACK to the based
> on
> > Contact address and ignores Route
> >
> > I just wanna ask if I missed some scenario in the RFC when it is
> described
> > to ignore Route header for the UA
> >
> > (I know that I use kamailio on my case as proxy server but should
> > understand finally who should make changes with packet handling)
> >
> > Thanks one more time for the resonses and sorry one more time for the
> goal
> > of this question that belongs to the kamailio just partially
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
> > sr-users at lists.kamailio.org
> > https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
>
>
> --
> Alex Balashov | Principal | Evariste Systems LLC
>
> Tel: +1-706-510-6800 / +1-800-250-5920 (toll-free)
> Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/, http://www.csrpswitch.com/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
> sr-users at lists.kamailio.org
> https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kamailio.org/pipermail/sr-users/attachments/20180701/f3189adc/attachment.html>