Hi all.
We have a partner with a Sonus box that we use for PSTN termination.
Their Sonus box produces suspect Record-Route headers. Can anyone tell me if it is compliant with RFC3261?
A sample header that I receive looks like this:
Record-Route: sip:xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:5060;lr
And I discovered that Asterisk-1.0.2 seems to not properly handle these messages so it does strict routing rather than loose routing.
Greg greger@teigre.com was kind enough to point me to RFC3261 Section 19.1.1 which seems to indicate that ;lr> should be ;lr=on> for complance.
Is this correct?
Regards, Paul
Not entirely true!
Although RFC3261 section 19.1.1 did `indicate' ";lr=on", section 25.1 have the following BNF notation.
uri-parameters = *( ";" uri-parameter) uri-parameter = transport-param / user-param / method-param / ttl-param / maddr-param / lr-param / other-param lr-param = "lr" other-param = pname [ "=" pvalue ]
So ";lr" is the correct BNF. However, I would agree that ";lr=on" is a more elegant approach.
BTW, SER accept both, and generate ";lr" by default. To get SER generate ";lr=on", check the enable_full_lr parameter in rr module.
Zeus
-----Original Message----- From: serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org] On Behalf Of Java Rockx Sent: Friday, 25 February 2005 4:06 PM To: serusers@lists.iptel.org Subject: [Serusers] ;lr=on> versus ;lr> -- which is RFC3261 compliant?
Hi all.
We have a partner with a Sonus box that we use for PSTN termination.
Their Sonus box produces suspect Record-Route headers. Can anyone tell me if it is compliant with RFC3261?
A sample header that I receive looks like this:
Record-Route: sip:xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:5060;lr
And I discovered that Asterisk-1.0.2 seems to not properly handle these messages so it does strict routing rather than loose routing.
Greg greger@teigre.com was kind enough to point me to RFC3261 Section 19.1.1 which seems to indicate that ;lr> should be ;lr=on> for complance.
Is this correct?
Regards, Paul
Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
I suppose then that Asterisk just isn't RFC3261 compliant -- which doesn't surprise me.
Thanks for pointing me to section 25.1
Regards, Paul
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 17:39:49 +1100, Zeus Ng zeus.ng@isquare.com.au wrote:
Not entirely true!
Although RFC3261 section 19.1.1 did `indicate' ";lr=on", section 25.1 have the following BNF notation.
uri-parameters = *( ";" uri-parameter) uri-parameter = transport-param / user-param / method-param / ttl-param / maddr-param / lr-param / other-param lr-param = "lr" other-param = pname [ "=" pvalue ]
So ";lr" is the correct BNF. However, I would agree that ";lr=on" is a more elegant approach.
BTW, SER accept both, and generate ";lr" by default. To get SER generate ";lr=on", check the enable_full_lr parameter in rr module.
Zeus
-----Original Message----- From: serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org] On Behalf Of Java Rockx Sent: Friday, 25 February 2005 4:06 PM To: serusers@lists.iptel.org Subject: [Serusers] ;lr=on> versus ;lr> -- which is RFC3261 compliant?
Hi all.
We have a partner with a Sonus box that we use for PSTN termination.
Their Sonus box produces suspect Record-Route headers. Can anyone tell me if it is compliant with RFC3261?
A sample header that I receive looks like this:
Record-Route: sip:xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:5060;lr
And I discovered that Asterisk-1.0.2 seems to not properly handle these messages so it does strict routing rather than loose routing.
Greg greger@teigre.com was kind enough to point me to RFC3261 Section 19.1.1 which seems to indicate that ;lr> should be ;lr=on> for complance.
Is this correct?
Regards, Paul
Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
Both are correct, ;lr (without =true) is a more intutive choice as it is used in all specs. Implementations which can't deal with either of them are to be fixed. SER can choose either, but chance is high that each choice will not work with some subset of imperfect implementations.
-jiri
At 06:05 AM 2/25/2005, Java Rockx wrote:
Hi all.
We have a partner with a Sonus box that we use for PSTN termination.
Their Sonus box produces suspect Record-Route headers. Can anyone tell me if it is compliant with RFC3261?
A sample header that I receive looks like this:
Record-Route: sip:xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:5060;lr
And I discovered that Asterisk-1.0.2 seems to not properly handle these messages so it does strict routing rather than loose routing.
Greg greger@teigre.com was kind enough to point me to RFC3261 Section 19.1.1 which seems to indicate that ;lr> should be ;lr=on> for complance.
Is this correct?
Regards, Paul
Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
-- Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/
-
Java Rockx -
Jiri Kuthan -
Zeus Ng