18 Oct
2004
18 Oct
'04
5:39 a.m.
Hi Jiri,
If I have record-route, ACK to a 200 OK should be forwarded loose route. But
for an ACK to negative reply, e.g. 487, it uses the original r-uri. Because
ACK to negative reply is hop-by-hop basis, ser should absorb the ACK and
won't forward it further, right? In ser.cfg, should we just drop it in case
ser doesn't absorb it? Downstream won't understand the ACK anyway and might
be screw up any existing call...
Richard
-----Original Message-----
From: Jiri Kuthan [mailto:jiri@iptel.org]
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 12:33 AM
To: Richard; serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
Subject: Re: [Serusers] r-uri for ACK
It depends. ACK for negative replies must have identical URIs as INVITEs.
Otherwise, it is dicated by record-routing. Loose routers (i.e., those
that
implement RFC3261 as opposed to the obsoleted RFC2543) put peer's contact
in there, which is ideal. Strict routers put record-routing information
there. This alternative is valid in terms of an obsoleted spec.
-jiri
At 11:02 AM 10/14/2004, Richard wrote:
Hi,
I have a basic sip question. Whats the correct r-uri for ACK? I use
stateful
forwarding, so all SIP messages pass through ser. I have seen two
types of UA. Some use the contact field of 200 OK response as the r-uri
and other use the original r-uri for INVITE.
Is it a SIP violation to use the original r-uri of INVITE? The problem
here is that
if there is a parallel forking for the INVITE, it might be
sent to places other than the real callee.
Any comment?
Thanks,
Richard
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
--
Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/