[SIPForum-discussion] Record-Route and Route headers

[sreekant nair]

Hi Vijay,

Thanks for the information, however I have to disagree slightly with your inputs. 

As per the draft-rosenberg-sip-route-construct-02 it states that clients may use "pre-existing route.. set configured on the UA by a user or service provider manually, or through some other non-SIP mechanism." The draft describes a way to get the route using SIP which, is the method you stated.

My requirement is that even the initial request (for e.g. REGISTER) must follow the route mentioned. Therefore I have to have the UA1 include the route header which can only be known using pre-programmed routes. 

Thanks in advance for your time. 

Regards
Sreekant



________________________________
From: Vijay Tiwari <vijay11tiwari at gmail.com>
To: sreekant nair <sreekant_nair at yahoo.com>
Cc: discussion at sipforum.org
Sent: Sat, January 9, 2010 5:12:41 AM
Subject: Re: [SIPForum-discussion] Record-Route and Route headers


Hello Sreekant
 
U1  -> P1  -> P2  -> U2

 
Yes you can you both header in P1  -> P2 legs.
 
but i want to includes some thing before you made any conclusion. one thing i want to say that  first proxies add record-route header field into invite message then send invite message to UAS(U2) and  then UAS(U2) send back  180 and 200 response to proxies and UAC with record-route header field and when UAC(U1) received record-route headers then UAC add route header into next all subsequent requests.
 
so U1 could not send route header field at first intense. so receiving record-route from proxies and UAS in 180 and 200 response after that U1 send route header field into next subsequent. 
 
Thanks
Vijay
 



On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 3:44 AM, sreekant nair <sreekant_nair at yahoo.com> wrote:

Hello,
>
>I have a question with respect to Record-Route and Route headers.
>
>Is it possible for SIP messages to have both a Record-Route Header AND a Route header in the same message?
>This is my scenario
>
>U1  -> P1  -> P2  -> U2
>
>Where 
>U1 : User Agent 1
>U2 : User Agent 2
>P1 : Proxy 1
>P2 : Proxy 2
>
>Is it valid to construct the messages in the following format( Note: I use symbolic representations)
>
>U1 -> P1              
>INVITE: U2 at domain.com
>VIA : U1.X.Y.Z
>Route: P1.A1.B1.C1;lr
>Route: P2.A2.B2.C2;lr
>
>P1 -> P2
>INVITE: U2 at domain.com
>VIA : P1.A1.B1.C1
>VIA : U1.X.Y.Z
>Record-Route: P1.A1.B1.C1;
>Route: P2.A2.B2.C2;lr
>
>P2 -> U2
>INVITE: U2 at domain.com
>VIA : P2.A2.B2.C2
>VIA : P1.A1.B1.C1
>VIA : U1.X.Y.Z
>Record-Route: P2.A2.B2.C2
>Record-Route: P1.A1.B1.C1
>
>Is it valid to have both a Route and Record-Route headers in the P1->P2 leg of the 
>
>Thanks in advance to all in response. 
>
>Regards
>Sreekant Nair
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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
>
>


-- 
They can because they think they can.


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sipforum.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20100110/70d7f41a/attachment-0002.html>