30 Apr
2015
30 Apr
'15
2:31 p.m.
I have a general question maybe somebody can help me out with. We have
a new SIP Trunk setup with a provider. The SIP Trunk has a username of
'jane' and it handles 400 DIDs. When the incoming INVITE from the
provider comes in, the URI in the Invite is the username of the trunk
while the To header actually has the dialed number. As long as I can
remember I have always seen the Invite as having the same URI as the To
Header in the initial INVITE but not so here.
18:17:34.786 SIP.STACK MSG INVITE
sip:jane@10.5.5.5:5060;transport=UDP SIP/2.0
18:17:34.787 SIP.STACK MSG Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
10.10.10.10:5060;branch=z9hG4bK290hka10e8j11dn7k0k0.1
18:17:34.788 SIP.STACK MSG From: "Test
"<sip:9541112222@voip.xxx.net;user=phone>;tag=1574552918-1430345854933-
18:17:34.788 SIP.STACK MSG To:
"Customer"<sip:2222222222@voip.xxx.net>
I am inclined to believe this is perfectly normal and compliant but let
me know what you think.
Thanks,
--
Technical Support
http://www.cellroute.net
30 Apr
30 Apr
2:35 p.m.
On 04/30/2015 07:31 AM, Andres wrote:
I am inclined to believe this is perfectly normal and
compliant but let
me know what you think.
Yep, it's normal. Moreover, only the RURI value should be used for
routing purposes or for anything else that's consequential in relation
to the destination; the "To" header has purely cosmetic meaning, as a
statement about the logical intended destination.
--
Alex Balashov | Principal | Evariste Systems LLC
303 Perimeter Center North, Suite 300
Atlanta, GA 30346
United States
Tel: +1-800-250-5920 (toll-free) / +1-678-954-0671 (direct)
Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/, http://www.csrpswitch.com/
4:25 p.m.
On 4/30/15 7:35 AM, Alex Balashov wrote:
On 04/30/2015 07:31 AM, Andres wrote:
Wait a minute...so if the To
header is mainly 'cosmetic', how are we to
differentiate incoming calls for 400 DIDs if the uri is always the same
(the username of the trunk), but the To header has the actual DID
number? I was under the impression that sure, the uri is responsible
for routing across the network, but once it reaches the final
destination hop (ie the PBX), the To header would kick in to actually
know where to send the call.
Thanks,
--
Technical Support
http://www.cellroute.net
I am inclined to believe this is perfectly normal
and compliant but let
me know what you think.
Yep, it's normal. Moreover, only the RURI value should be used for
routing purposes or for anything else that's consequential in relation
to the destination; the "To" header has purely cosmetic meaning, as a
statement about the logical intended destination.
4:28 p.m.
No, that's not correct. The provider needs to send DNIS in the RURI in these cases,
and providers should have a setting to enable this. It does require overriding the Contact
binding of the registrant (if applicable), which is not RFC-compliant, but that's
okay.
--
Alex Balashov | Principal | Evariste Systems LLC
303 Perimeter Center North, Suite 300
Atlanta, GA 30346
United States
Tel: +1-800-250-5920 (toll-free) / +1-678-954-0671 (direct)
Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/, http://www.csrpswitch.com/
Sent from my BlackBerry.
4:39 p.m.
On 4/30/15 9:28 AM, Alex Balashov wrote:
No, that's not correct. The provider needs to send
DNIS in the RURI in these cases, and providers should have a setting to enable this. It
does require overriding the Contact binding of the registrant (if applicable), which is
not RFC-compliant, but that's okay.
Great thanks! Now its time to complain to
the provider :)
--
Alex Balashov | Principal | Evariste Systems LLC
303 Perimeter Center North, Suite 300
Atlanta, GA 30346
United States
Tel: +1-800-250-5920 (toll-free) / +1-678-954-0671 (direct)
Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/, http://www.csrpswitch.com/
Sent from my BlackBerry.
_______________________________________________
SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list
sr-users(a)lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
--
Technical Support
http://www.cellroute.net
3494
days inactive
3494
days old
4 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Alex Balashov -
Andres