[SIPForum-discussion] FW: querry related to SIPp
dushyant
dushyant.dhalia at rancoretech.com
Mon Jun 16 05:16:55 UTC 2008
Hi all,
Can anybody help me in resolving a issue related to SIPp? In an IMS call
scenario I need to preserve the record route received in 200OK and use the
same to form Route header of ACK. I have made the following changes in the
xml files but instead of using the values received in Record-Route of 200
OK, it's is using some default value. The received message (200OK) and xml
portion are attached.
UDP message received [481] bytes :
SIP/2.0 200 OK^M
From: 9000<sip:9000 at 10.34.77.48:6666>;tag=1^M
To: 23400<sip:23400 at 10.34.77.48:5060>;tag=1^M
Call-ID: 1.9881.10.34.77.48 at sipp.call.id^M
CSeq: 1 INVITE^M
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 10.34.77.48:6666^M
Record-Route: <sip:mo2 at 10.66.10.13:8055;lr>^M
Contact: <sip:10.34.77.48:5060;transport=UDP>^M
Content-Type: application/sdp^M
Content-Length: 136^M
^M
v=0^M
o=user1 53655765 2353687637 IN IP4 127.0.0.1^M
s=-^M
c=IN IP4 127.0.0.1^M
t=0 0^M
m=audio 10000 RTP/AVP 8^M
a=rtpmap:8 PCMA/8000^M
---------------------- XML------------------------------
<!-- By adding rrs="true" (Record Route Sets), the route sets -->
<!-- are saved and used for following messages sent. Useful to test -->
<!-- against stateful SIP proxies/B2BUAs. -->
<recv response="200" rtd="true" rrs="true">
</recv>
<!-- Packet lost can be simulated in any send/recv message by -->
<!-- by adding the 'lost = "10"'. Value can be [1-100] percent. -->
<send>
<![CDATA[
ACK sip:[field1]@[remote_ip]:[remote_port] SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/[transport] [local_ip]:[local_port];branch=dushyant
From: [field0]<sip:[field0]@[local_ip]:[local_port]>;tag=[call_number]
To: [field1]<sip:[field1]@[remote_ip]:[remote_port]>[peer_tag_param]
Call-ID: [call_id]
CSeq: 1 ACK
Contact: sip:[field0]@[local_ip]:[local_port]
Max-Forwards: 70
Subject: Performance Test
Content-Length: 0
[routes]
]]>
</send>
Dushyant P S Dhalia
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sipforum.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20080616/f9386187/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the discussion
mailing list