|
| From: | Walter Schober |
| Subject: | [Partysip-dev] Modification of Request URI in partysip? |
| Date: | Mon, 15 Sep 2003 17:46:53 +0200 |
Hi!
How far is Partysip RFC3261 conform? Because acc. to the RFC
RFC 3261, 16.6, point 7: Determine the next-hop address, port, and transport
the proxy should add a Via-Field only and must not change the Request URI. Otherwise the Invited user cannot be found.
My scenario (user in domain sip.labor.uta.at calls user in domain labor.uta.at):
address@hidden -> INVITE address@hidden to outbound proxy of sip.labor.uta.at
INVITE sip:address@hidden SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 10.10.24.1:5061
From: Walter Schober <sip:address@hidden:5061>;tag=536123116
To: <sip:address@hidden>
Contact: <sip:address@hidden:5061>
Call-ID: address@hidden
CSeq: 28705 INVITE
Content-Type: application/sdp
User-Agent: X-Lite build 1047
Content-Length: 291
Proxy of sip.labor.uta.at (partysip) -> DNS SRV -> SRV Reply:
sip-proxy.labor.uta.at is proxy of domain labor.uta.at
Partysip changes the Request URI line to:
INVITE sip:address@hidden SIP/2.0
The message
INVITE sip:address@hidden SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.3.2:5060;branch=z9hG4bKf0db4af6b864d6fae91f21c2ca9693d32.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 10.10.24.1:5061
From: Walter Schober <sip:address@hidden:5061>;tag=536123116
To: <sip:address@hidden>
Call-ID: address@hidden
CSeq: 28705 INVITE
Contact: <sip:address@hidden:5061>
user-agent: X-Lite build 1047
Content-Type: application/sdp
Content-Length: 291
Is forwarded to the next hop proxy, who don't know that user, but would have known the To: user :-)
Shouldn't partysip just leave the Request URI as it was?
Rgds,
Walter
| [Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |