Hi Manju, Thanks, I totally agree with your explanation. I think it is obvious that my real intention is to make sure that the proxy receives the BYE which brings me to the next (dirty) alternative. Modify the Contact header in the INVITE and replace it with the proxy's address before it goes down the path. If the proxy can cache the original Contact header and use it to route suceeding messages, would that be an allowable option?
Joegen Manjunath Warad wrote: >Hi Joegen, > > If the UAS does not comply to the specification behavior and >dispatches the 200 response without the RR(Record-Route), then the UAC will >use the remote target directly to send the message, bypassing all the >Record-Routing Proxies. Take it another way, a misbehaving UAC can also >choose to ignore the RouteSet even if present in the 200 response and stll >try to send the message directly to the remote target. So the question >becomes whether the signallling should go through ? > > The standards do not require the proxy to manipulate the Record >Route headers in the response. If a network is configured in such a way that >UAC and UAS cannot directly communicate with each other, but able to do so >only if they go through these Record-Routing proxies (that's the reason that >they would record-route in the first place), then there should be no problem >and the call will always fail without creating any billing issues also. > > Now considering your question whether proxy can add RR in response, >its not possible for the proxy to judge the position to add RR. For e.g., >consider between UAC & UAS there are 3 proxies, in case proxy1 will not add >RR and proxy2 detect there is no RR and try to add RR, how would it judge >the position of RR. Even if it adds, still I think this Route will not be >correct for the future requests. > >Hope I am clear. > >Rgds, >Manju > >-----Original Message----- >From: Joegen E. Baclor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Friday, March 31, 2006 3:54 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Cc: [email protected] >Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] Question regarding Record-Route > > >Hi Manju, > >Thanks for the response. Yes I know that the proxy would be able to >properly route the response. However being able to deliver the response >is not really the concern of my question. In the case of a 200 OK >response to an INVITE, the UAC needs to know the Record-Route to be able >to properly contruct succeeding requests within the dialog. How would >the UAC be able to construct the Route Set without the Record-Route in >the response? > >Joegen > >Manjunath Warad wrote: > > > >>Hi Joegen, >> Proxy shouldn't bother about the Record-Route in the response. >>No need to insert Record-Route in response. Response traverses in >>the network using Via header. >> >>Rgds, >>Manju >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joegen >>E. Baclor >>Sent: Friday, March 31, 2006 2:45 PM >>To: [email protected] >>Subject: [Sip-implementors] Question regarding Record-Route >> >> >>Hi, >> >>If a proxy record routes and the response it gets does not contain the >>record-route, what should be the correct behavior of the proxy. Should >>it insert the record-route before relaying the response? >> >>Joegen >>_______________________________________________ >>Sip-implementors mailing list >>[email protected] >>https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
