[SIPForum-discussion] Record-Route and Route headers

[Vijay Tiwari]

hello sreekant

i am agree on your point but my question to you that are you talking about
draft. and its not necessary that everyone support this draft.

Thanks
vijay

On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 10:07 PM, sreekant nair <sreekant_nair at yahoo.com>wrote:

>  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.
>
>
>


-- 
They can because they think they can.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sipforum.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20100111/f8704353/attachment-0002.html>