>>But is there a good way to determine INVITE vs re-INVITE statelessly?
Thinking about it, I guess one way is for the stateless proxy to look at the Record-Route and Route. Obviously the stateless proxy would have to use Record-Route because otherwise it wouldn't see the re-INVITE anyway. Then, an INVITE usually won't have a Route header. Whereas a re-INVITE usually will. But this won't work for all cases. (For example, if using the Path header to a SIP REGISTRAR/PROXY. The REGISTRAR/PROXY will set Route headers to route the call to the UA so in this case this will be a INVITE with Route headers) -----Original Message----- From: Attila Sipos Sent: 01 May 2007 10:49 To: 'Vikram Chhibber' Cc: chozhan A; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; sip implementors Subject: RE: [Sip-implementors] RFC 2543: INVITE vs re-INVITE I agee, if the proxy has knowledge then looking for a matching existing dialog is the best way. But is there a good way to determine INVITE vs re-INVITE statelessly? -----Original Message----- From: Vikram Chhibber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 01 May 2007 10:16 To: Attila Sipos Cc: chozhan A; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; sip implementors Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] RFC 2543: INVITE vs re-INVITE The better approach is if the proxy has the knowledge of confirmed SIP dialog, if the re-invite is received, it can search for the dialog and if it exists, it is a re-invite. Checking of Tags is not a reliable approach as the initial invite's >From header may not have tag. If you rely on checking the presence of To header tag as re-invite, then re-invite from the termination may not have a To tag and you may confuse this with initial invite (Remember To and From headers are swapped if a mid-dialog request is sent from termination side). On 5/1/07, Attila Sipos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I have a different question. > > An RFC 2543 re-INVITE could have just a From tag, just like an RFC3261 INVITE. > > So, how to distinguish between an RFC2543 re-INVITE and an RFC3261 INVITE? > > > Regards, > > Attila > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of chozhan A > Sent: 01 May 2007 04:31 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'sip implementors' > Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] RFC 2543: INVITE vs re-INVITE > > > Hi, > > Does RFC 2543 says initial INVITE MUST NOT have from tag or is it optional > > Thanks/Regards > AC > > Bala Neelakantan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In the original INVITE there will be no From and To Tags. In the Re-INVITE > there will be a To Tag. > > Thanks, > Neel > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:sip-implementors- > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of chozhan A > > Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 2:54 AM > > To: sip implementors > > Subject: [Sip-implementors] RFC 2543: INVITE vs re-INVITE > > > > Hi all, > > > > If the Caller and Callee both are 2543 end points. > > How to distinguish between INVITE and re-INVITE at a proxy(transaction > > stateful) that establishes the call between them and record routes. > > > > Regards > > AC > > > > > > --------------------------------- > > Check out what you're missing if you're not on Yahoo! Messenger > > _______________________________________________ > > Sip-implementors mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors > > > > > --------------------------------- > Check out what you're missing if you're not on Yahoo! Messenger > _______________________________________________ > 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 > _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
