[Kamailio-Users] UAC on ACK in reInvite

[Schober Walter]

To finish the thread: I just entered below loose_route():
if (check_route_param("vsf=")) {
  avp_write("$hdr(Route[0])", "$avp(rr-param)");
  avp_subst("$avp(rr-param)", "/^.*?(;vsf=[^>]+).*/\1/");  #
$hdr(Route[0]) is not 1st header only, if multi header in one line
  xlog("L_INFO", ">> Stored UAC params $avp(rr-param)");

  add_rr_param("$avp(rr-param)");
} 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Schober Walter 
> Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 2:39 PM
> To: 'Klaus Darilion'
> Cc: 'users at lists.kamailio.org'
> Subject: RE: AW: [Kamailio-Users] UAC on ACK in reInvite
> 
> See below...
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Klaus Darilion [mailto:klaus.mailinglists at pernau.at] 
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 1:21 AM
> [...]
> > 
> > This is clearly a bug in the useragent. The route set must not be 
> > changed with reINVITEs. Thus, according to the standard the 
> > Record-Route 
> > headers for indialog requests are not needed. Maybe you are calling 
> > record_route() for indialog requests and this confuses the client.
> Fully agree on this. But some proxies add Record-Route, some 
> don't, Openser/Kamailio can configure it.
> 
> It's not that clear in the RFC, but I see it the same way:
> RFC 3261, 12.2 Request within a Dialog
> ...
>    Requests within a dialog MAY contain Record-Route and 
> Contact header
>    fields.  However, these requests do not cause the dialog's 
> route set
>    to be modified, although they may modify the remote target URI.
> 
> 12.2.1.2 Processing the Responses
> -> The only thing mentioned is that the _Target URI_ gets 
> refreshed by the 200 OK. 
> 
> => reInvites do not modify the routeset of any subsequent 
> request, neither the ACK not any other upcoming request.
> 
> > Try removing the record_route() for indialog requests - may 
> then the 
> > buggy client remembers the original route set.
> Done. Client sends ACK on reInvite directly then :-( 
> Counterpath is OK, Teles Voipbox not, other clients to be tested ...
> 
> So I will have to add vsf uri param from Route to record 
> route in the proxy. This at least is a reason to upgrade :-) 
> It's done more easily with tranformations.
> 
> Thanks for the discussion! For me it's "clearly a bug in the 
> UA" now, too ;-) However, let's find a workaround.
> 
> br
> Walter