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

[Yuriy Gorlichenko]

Anyway thank you so much for your responses
I really appreciate your time and your help here

2018-07-02 10:42 GMT+03:00 Yuriy Gorlichenko <ovoshlook at gmail.com>:

> Yep this clear for me from the start.
>
> For me for now not clear question  abot direct connect for now.
>
> 2018-07-02 10:00 GMT+03:00 Alex Balashov <abalashov at evaristesys.com>:
>
>> On Mon, Jul 02, 2018 at 09:59:12AM +0300, Yuriy Gorlichenko wrote:
>>
>> > That was my point also...
>> > But they sent me lint to rfc3261 12.1.2 and that confused me
>> >
>> > So just for resume:
>> >
>> > So am I right if I say that in case If provider receives INVITE with
>> > Record-Route from my side (myProxy)
>> > Provider should care about it's own Record-Route and it should have uri
>> > where myProxy should sent ACK to instead of using Contact in thi case
>> >
>> > In case direct conntect UAC -> Provider I still need to use Contact
>> field
>> > as URI to send ACK to that explained on the 12.1.2 of rfc3261?
>>
>> If the provider sent you a Record-Route of their own in addition to any
>> that you have placed there, your UAC must still follow it when
>> contacting them for in-dialog requests.
>>
>> --
>> 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/e2d6063b/attachment.html>