Thank you all for the replies.
I'm already utilizing a record-route header in the initial Invite before any re-invites occur. Is the preferred method to also include a record-route header in the 200 OK that is given in response to the re-invite? Thank you, Jack Davis On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 2:14 PM, Emmanuel BUU <emmanuel....@ives.fr> wrote: > For a SIP proxy, the preferred method is indeed to add a Record-Route > > In the script, add record_route(); instruction. > > Emmanuel > IVèS > > > > Le 2017-03-02 à 20:03, Robert Johnson a écrit : > >> I seem to recall reading something stating that you shouldn't modify the >> contact header - But, I can't find the text. >> >> Might suggest adding a Record-Route header instead of re-writing the >> contact header? >> >> I'm curious as to what the list has to say about this question, I've >> considered doing the same thing. >> >> On 03/02/2017 04:53 PM, Jack Davis wrote: >> >>> Greetings, >>> >>> I have a general question about the usage of SIP contact headers in the >>> context of using Kamailio as a SIP proxy. >>> >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> >>> [ A ] --> [ Kamailio B ] ---> [ C ] >>> >>> Node A originates a SIP invite, containing a valid via header and URI >>> while setting the contact address to a user@itself and delivers it to >>> Kamailio B which is acting as a SIP proxy. >>> >>> Kamailio B then uses dispatcher routing to direct the Invite to node C, >>> adding a via line with its own information as well as a record-route >>> header with its own proxy information but retaining the same contact >>> address from A. >>> >>> Node C establishes the call and then sends a re-invite to the Kamailio B >>> proxy which is in turn sent to Node A. Node A responds with a 200 OK >>> >>> The problem arises when Node C tries to send an Ack in response to this >>> 200 OK. The ack is being sent to the Contact address, rather than the >>> routing already established in the initial dialog. >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> >>> My question is: should kamailio be rewriting this contact address with >>> its own? Is that the best practice? My understanding is that the contact >>> header is more so related to future requests within the same dialog ONLY >>> when a record-route is not used. >>> >>> I would appreciate any clarification on the RFC or best practices in >>> this scenario. >>> >>> Thank you, >>> Jack Davis >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list >>> sr-users@lists.sip-router.org >>> http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list >> sr-users@lists.sip-router.org >> http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users >> > > > _______________________________________________ > SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list > sr-users@lists.sip-router.org > http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users >
_______________________________________________ SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list sr-users@lists.sip-router.org http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users