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

[Yuriy Gorlichenko]

* which contains last interface i sent INVITE to  - means that uri in the
Route hasinterface and it just same with interface I sent invite to. I
understand hat it is not a dependency.
* (Ignoring Route header that actually also exists in the Contact field) -
means aslo existsi in the resquest. Not in the contact field offcource

2018-07-02 9:31 GMT+03:00 Yuriy Gorlichenko <ovoshlook at gmail.com>:

> Sorry for noize from my side
> I just cant fully understand dependency:
>
> I understand that actually route header shoud not be ingnored because it
> is shows way for the in-dialog packet
> That is fine.
>
> Just regarding behaivor of the FreeSwitch and other UACs
>
> For now I have a next picture
>
> When my provider sends me 200 - it contains as Record-Route: 1.1.1.1:5060
> which contains last interface i sent INVITE to
> Also it contains Contact: 1.1.1.1:5061
>
> So when UAC receives this call without my proxy between provider and UAC
> it sends ACK to Contact URI (Ignoring Route header that actually also
> exists in the Contact field) sent at the 200 according rfc3261 -12.1.2
> (that I shared above)
>
> But when it sends via my proxy:
>
> UAC receives ACK with 2 Route headers (that is right) and sends it to the
> topmost Route (myProxy) then my proxy as normal proxy resends it to the
> provider using second Route (that topmost for now after myProxy removes
> itself from Route set)
>
> But here provider says me - you should use Contact field to reach target
> even from myProxy.
>
> So in this case - At the behaivor of UAC -> Provider  it looks matched
> 12.1.2 but I still cant understand why in this case it ignores Route header
> at the ACK that actually exists
>
>
>
> 2018-07-02 9:02 GMT+03:00 Alex Balashov <abalashov at evaristesys.com>:
>
>> On Mon, Jul 02, 2018 at 09:00:02AM +0300, Yuriy Gorlichenko wrote:
>>
>> > yep I understand that.
>> > I just see that in fact ACK soudl ignore Route header if it... Single?
>>
>> What? No.
>>
>> There are two kinds of ACKs: hop-by-hop ACKs, which acknowledge negative
>> final replies on every branch, and end-to-end ACKs, which are handled
>> according to the rules for in-dialog requests. An ACK for a 2xx reply to
>> an INVITE is going to be an in-dialog request, and under no
>> circumstances should any Route headers be ignored unless they refer to
>> the very proxy through which they are traversing. In that case, they
>> should be stripped off before continuing with the next-hop Route. This
>> is the standard loose-routing procedure labouriously articulated in the
>> RFC, and implemented by loose_route().
>>
>> --
>> 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/20180702/e8ec8bd0/attachment.html>