[SIPForum-discussion] Strict routing

[aditya kumar]

Yes, I have already gone through the 16.12.1.2 of rfc, after that I shooted this mail...BCZ there was no clearly mentioned the header part and routing.In my mail I have clearly mentioned the specific items in bold letter what I wants rather than  theoretical definition.
 
Thanks,
Adi


Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 17:20:44 +0800From: deepanshu at huawei.comSubject: Re: [SIPForum-discussion] Strict routingTo: adityaakumar at hotmail.comCC: discussion at sipforum.org



You can refer to RFC3261 section number 16.12.1.2
 
This section gives an exmaple exactly same as what you mentined. 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: aditya kumar 
To: discussion at sipforum.org 
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 2:12 PM
Subject: [SIPForum-discussion] Strict routing

Hi All,
 
As per my knowledge Strict routing means: Which proxy address is strictly mention in the record route, the request must follow that record route and to reach the destination point.
 
So here My query is on the call-flow:
Let's take one example:UA1->p1->p2->p3-UA2
Out of the above flow, Proxy P2 address is strictly mention in the record route (strict router) then how the call is routing.
Here, I would like to know more specific about the Requests and response of header part (Not all header fields, only need of request URI, route and Record route header field of req and response)
 
Kindly guidance me to resolve this problem.
 
Thanks,
Adi
 

Download the latest version of Windows Live Messenger NOW! Click here! 



_______________________________________________This is the SIP Forum discussion mailing listTO UNSUBSCRIBE, or edit your delivery options, please visit http://sipforum.org/mailman/listinfo/discussionPost to the list at discussion at sipforum.org
_________________________________________________________________
Download the latest version of Windows Live Messenger NOW!
http://get.live.com/en-ie/messenger/overview
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sipforum.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20070905/cf956661/attachment-0002.html>