[SIPForum-discussion] HELP

alexzhang at gdnt.com.cn alexzhang at gdnt.com.cn
Fri May 16 07:28:18 UTC 2008

If I am not wrong, the latter one will be ignored...

Alex Zhang 
ESN: 6-554-8782 



From: discussion-bounces at sipforum.org
[mailto:discussion-bounces at sipforum.org] On Behalf Of Ganesh Bhattathiri
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 3:04 PM
To: 'rajesh'
Cc: discussion at sipforum.org
Subject: Re: [SIPForum-discussion] HELP



If both are correct in a case when the sip request travels through
multiple proxy servers before actually reaching destination , which of
the two format would be used?





From: rajesh [mailto:rajeshkumar.r at imimobile.com] 
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 11:59 AM
To: Ganesh Bhattathiri
Subject: Re: [SIPForum-discussion] HELP


As per my knowledge both format correct.

can write in one via header seperated by " , " or can use multiple via
field .


Thanks and Regards
Rajesh Kumar
Sr. Software Engineer
R & D - Network Group 
+91 40 23555945 - 235
+91 99084 00027



	----- Original Message ----- 

	From: Ganesh Bhattathiri
<mailto:ganesh_bhattathiri at persistent.co.in>  

	To: discussion at sipforum.org 

	Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 11:22 AM

	Subject: [SIPForum-discussion] HELP


	Hi everyone,


	Sorry to trouble again, I wanted to know if there are multiple
via headers in a sip request could the header be written in the
following manner?


	" Via: SIP/2.0/UDP

server11.biloxi.com;branch=z9hG2fdK776asdhds;received= "


	Or do we write  it as,


	" Via: SIP/2.0/UDP

	   Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
server11.biloxi.com;branch=z9hG2fdK776asdhds;received= "


	And if it is the later then is the first header format wrong? Or
is it possible to write the header in that format?


	Awaiting reply.


	Thanks in advance





	This is the SIP Forum discussion mailing list
	TO UNSUBSCRIBE, or edit your delivery options, please visit
	Post to the list at discussion at sipforum.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sipforum.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20080516/35a867af/attachment-0002.html>

More information about the discussion mailing list