9 Sep
2006
9 Sep
'06
2:54 p.m.
Hi Steve, Thanks for elaborating and providing the reference to the
"anonymous RFC."
I have written up a FAQ item on this for future reference:
http://www.iptel.org/FAQ_To_From_change
To all: Anyone with an account at http://iptel.org/ can add content like
FAQs, how'tos etc. If you don't have the answer, but rather a FAQ item
you think should be described, you can create a new FAQ question and
leave the answer to others :-)
g-)
Steve Blair wrote:
Greger:
Thanks for addressing this. I've had a few questions about From
rewriting over the years. I'd like to add one more point. RFC3323 does
permit the display name and uri in the From header to be rewritten for
privacy concerns providing the tag is maintained. So rewriting the
From header to somthing like the following is acceptable for
applications such as caller ID blocking.
From: "Anonymous" <sip:anonymous@anonymous.invalid>;tag=873345996
That being said I've moved away from this technique for caller ID
blocking because it presents problems with call detail record
generation. I generate CDRs in my gateways. With this form of caller
ID blocking the CDR record shows the called number but the calling
number is the word "anonymous". To get around this I now use
Remote-Party-ID headers with a display name of "anonymous" but a uri
which preserves the original calling number.
We are looking at using P-Asserted-Identity next to remain current
with the standards but we aren't there yet.
-Steve
Greger V. Teigre wrote:
Ok, I've written this before, but it's
important and worth another try.
First of all some clarifications:
- From and To have nothing to do with routing
- The requirement to not touch From and To has nothing to do with SER
implementation
- The tags in From and To together with Call-Id form a dialog and is
important for matching SIP messages in a transaction (ex. an INVITE -
OK - ACK sequence) and a dialog (ex. later reINVITEs, BYE etc)
http://www.tech-invite.com/Ti-sip-abnf-hf.html#from
Thus, in order to be RFC3261 compliant, you need to:
1. NOT touch the tags in From and To
2. NOT touch the remainder of From and To
If you break #1, you mess up transaction and dialog matching and
pretty much everything breaks. If you break #2, you violate the
requirement to be backwards compatible.
That being said, if ALL your UAs and gateways support and use
RFC3261, changing From and To names/uris (while leaving tags) will
probably work, but as all subsequent SIP related IETF documents and
implementation try to be RFC3261 compliant, it is assumed that From
and To are only changed two places:
a. In the UAs
b. In a B2BUA, i.e. a server that terminates a dialog with UA1 and
creates another one with UA2 and thus is a go-between
New SEMS can be used for b.
So, regardless of using uac module or subst for replacing From/To,
you will be MUCH better off if you follow the intentions of the RFCs,
i.e. change the From/To in the UAs through the provisioning systems
you use. Having lots of non-compliant SER installations is a recipe
for trouble in the future.
Note that there is an exception to the anonymization of a call. I
tried to find the reference, but I couldn't find it. Does somebody
sit on the reference?
I hope that was clarifying.
g-)
Ricardo Carvalho wrote:
It isn't necessary to restore those
from-header fields to maintain
the call leg of transactions taking place. As far as I know, by the
tests I made, Ser routes SIP messages based on Call-Id and not as
well From and To tags of messages.
Although this is only true if all UAs that you use are
RFC3261compliant. If some phones that you use implement the old
protocol, uses the full content of From/To for the same purposes,
you may get some problems... It's risky manipulate From/To tags...
Regards,
Ricardo.
G.Jacobsen wrote:
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
Serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
Ricardo,
Ok, but how do you restore the from-header when you send answers of
the
downstream party to the upstream party again ?
Cheers
Gerry
----- Original Message ----- From: "Ricardo Carvalho"
<rcarvalho(a)iric.up.pt>
To: "Alex Fler" <alexfler(a)yahoo.com>
Cc: <serusers(a)lists.iptel.org>
Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 5:15 PM
Subject: Re: [Serusers] Re: rewrite the FROM part of SIP INVITE
> I've used subst() function for substituting From and To URIs and
> calls
> succeed well! I think that this indicates that Ser uses in fact
> only the
> Call-Id to keep track of calls and not as well From and To tags of
> messages. Although I this may end up biting me later...
>
> You can do that for example with the following syntax:
>
>
subst('/^From:(.*)sip:.*@your_domain(.*)/From:\1sip:what_ever_number@what_ev
er_domain\2/');
> Greetings,
>
> Ricardo.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Alex Fler wrote:
>
>> Hello guys,
>>
>> Sorry for a stupid question, but how do you actually rewrite the
>> FROM
>> part of SIP INVITE ?
>>
>> Do you use avp ? Could someone give me an example ?
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks to all
>>
>>
>>
>> Alex Fler
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Serusers mailing list
>> Serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
>> http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Serusers mailing list
> Serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
> http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
>
___________________________________________________________
Try the all-new Yahoo! Mail. "The New Version is radically easier
to use" – The Wall Street Journal
http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
Serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers