At 04:39 AM 10/18/2004, Richard wrote:
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.
sure
Because ACK to negative reply is hop-by-hop basis, ser should absorb the ACK and won't forward it further, right?
indeed
In ser.cfg, should we just drop it in case ser doesn't absorb it?
SER absorbs it either in t_relay if the reply was generated statefully or even before enterint the script if reply was generated statellsy.
-jiri
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@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@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
-- Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/
Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
-- Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/