[SIPForum-discussion] Domain IP is same in TO & FROM header field.

[AMIT ANAND]

Yes, Stew is correct , For this purpose people use B2BUA as this handels
both legs of call seperately. The hop next to B2BUA should look at the
request URI for terminating the call.
not the to and from headers. As the tew commented this is used for topology
hiding.

Thanks

Amit



On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 10:07 PM, Stewart Bunce <Stewart.Bunce at telsis.com>wrote:

>  A B2BUA basically terminates and then re-originates signalling
> information. In this case it appears to be using its own IP address as the
> originating IP addess in the FROM field. I believe this is perfectly valid
> behaviour as, technically, it is originating a new SIP call. This can
> actually be desirable behaviour as it can be used for hiding network
> topology from end users. In this case you would also expect to see
> Record-Route, Route and Via headers stripped before sending the INVITE
> onwards. Of course in order for this to work the B2BUA has to have some
> internal mechanism for mapping between the inbound and outbound call legs.
>
> Just out of interest what B2BUA are you using and what is it designed to
> do?
>
> Stew
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* discussion-bounces at sipforum.org [mailto:
> discussion-bounces at sipforum.org]*On Behalf Of *nitin kapoor
> *Sent:* 23 June 2009 00:30
> *To:* discussion
> *Subject:* [SIPForum-discussion] Domain IP is same in TO & FROM header
> field.
>
> Hello Friends,
>
> I am facing the problem where i can see that when my UAC is sending the
> initial invite to my server(B2BUA), TO & FROM header field is correct but
> when my B2BUA is forwarding the same invite to next hop(termination end)
> then TO & FROM header field domain ip/name is different. I am not sure it is
> possible or not.
>
> *TO & FROM in the intial invite.*
> From: <sip:6782617979@*72.46.253.61*
> :5060>;tag=ea1a59c8-3dfd2e48-13c4-5506-22ae0b-3e082bb5-22ae0b
> To: <sip:20805215519112887@*69.42.101.140*:5060>
> *
> TO & FROM when B2BUA is forwarding the same request to termination end.*
>
> To: <sip:20805215519112887@*69.42.101.140*:5060>
> From: <sip:6782617979@*69.42.101.140*>;tag=3454088168-182424
>
> And if it is possible then on which scenario its is possible??
>
> Please help me to understand the issue.
>
> I have attached the ethereal traces with the mail.
>
> Thanks,
> Nitin Kapoor
>
>
> ------------------------------
> NOTICE & DISCLAIMER
>
> This email including attachments (this "Document") is confidential and may
> contain legally privileged information.  If you have received this Document
> in error please notify the sender immediately and delete this Document from
> your system without using, copying, disclosing or disseminating it or
> placing any reliance upon its contents.  We cannot accept liability for any
> breaches of confidence arising through use of this Document.
>
> The information contained in this Document is provided solely for
> information purposes on an "as is" basis without warranty of any kind,
> either express or implied, including without limitation any implied warranty
> of satisfactory or merchantable quality, fitness for a particular purpose or
> freedom from error or infringement.  The user relies on the information
> contained herein, and its accuracy or otherwise, entirely at their own risk.
>
> Any opinions expressed in this Document are those of the author and do not
> necessarily reflect the opinions of Telsis.  We will not accept
> responsibility for any commitments made by our employees outside the scope
> of our business.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> This is the SIP Forum discussion mailing list
> TO UNSUBSCRIBE, or edit your delivery options, please visit
> http://sipforum.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
> Post to the list at discussion at sipforum.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sipforum.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20090630/2d578eec/attachment-0002.html>