Re: two questions for route information preprocessing of initial INVITE with Route headers
"Dale Worley" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.sip |
|---|---|
| Organization | Nortel Networks |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Fri, 2009-09-18 at 13:46 +0800, [email protected] wrote: > Hi, all > > > I have two questions for route information preprocessing of initial INVITE > with Route headers > > > first question: > > UA(or B2BUA) receives an initial INVITE with Route headers, assuming UA's > host is example.com > > if the sip entity which sends the INVITE is a loose router, the INVITE may > be like this: > > INVITE sip:[email protected] > Route: <sip:[email protected];lr> > > if the sip entity which sends the INVITE is a strict router, the INVITE may > be like this: > > INVITE sip:[email protected] > Route: <sip:[email protected]> > > we cannot distinguish those two scenarioes because Requet-URIs in two > scenarioes are similar. > if we do route information preprocessing according RFC3261 section 16.4, we > will get two different > results. And there is no desciption for UA route information preprocessing > in RFC3261, RFC3261 > section 16.4 just describes proxy behavior. > > How to processing route information of initial INVITE with Route headers > for UA? The first question is whether the element is prepared to act as a proxy (as well as a UA). If the element is not prepared to act as a proxy, it can't process the request properly, as the semantics are "First send to <sip...>, and let it send to <sip...>". So it should either ignore the message or return an error. If the element is prepared to act as a proxy, it should process the message as a proxy would. Dale _______________________________________________ Sip mailing list https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use [email protected] for questions on current sip Use [email protected] for new developments on the application of sip