[SIPForum-discussion] should the INVITE be accepted or rejected?

[Keith Lin]

Hello everyone,

Suppose there is an UA, who has registered successfully (as seen in M1 and
M2 below).
Now if there comes an INVITE request (as seen in M3 below) to the UA, what
should it reply? 200 OK? or?

My opinion is the UA should reject the INVITE, because the UA was registered
with the URI draytec at test.winitu.com
The INVITE has a "to-header" of 31172759442 at 213.239.5.69
As you can see, both username part and domain/host part of the URI are
different
That's why I reckon the UA should reject the INVITE......  what do you guys
think?

Thank you in advance


M1 - trying to register
--------------------------------------
REGISTER sip:test.winitu.com SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 10.14.0.12:5060;branch=z9hG4bK-baZ-2090457395;rport
From: 31172759442 <sip:draytec at test.winitu.com>;tag=qPb-1821832709
To: <sip:draytec at test.winitu.com>
Call-ID: WFZ-1501346479 at 10.14.0.12
CSeq: 554 REGISTER
Contact: <sip:draytec at 10.14.0.12>
Authorization: Digest username="draytec", realm="test.winitu.com",
nonce="4e8ec82292bcbf9f47f4a24db8a35d3815f84dcc", uri="sip:test.winitu.com",
response="edfb37427d91f45c1a10b2776f81196b", algorithm=MD5
Max-Forwards: 15
Expires: 3600
User-Agent: DrayTek UA-1.2.3 Vigor2130
Content-Length: 0


M2 - registered successfully
--------------------------------------
SIP/2.0 200 OK
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 10.14.0.12:5060
;branch=z9hG4bK-baZ-2090457395;rport=5060;received=80.89.226.24
From: 31172759442 <sip:draytec at test.winitu.com>;tag=qPb-1821832709
To: <sip:draytec at test.winitu.com>;tag=2b942734826ad2dca07eef0e7632aeb1.715c
Call-ID: WFZ-1501346479 at 10.14.0.12
CSeq: 554 REGISTER
Contact: <sip:draytec at 10.14.0.12>;expires=3600;received="sip:
80.89.226.24:5060"
Content-Length: 0


M3 - incoming INVITE message
--------------------------------------
INVITE sip:draytec at 10.14.0.12 SIP/2.0
Record-Route: <sip:213.239.5.69;lr=on;ftag=20B9158-2341;nat=yes>
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 213.239.5.69;branch=z9hG4bKb598.4282f896.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP  212.4.211.245:5060;rport=65139;x-route-tag="
cid:DMS-TRUNK at 212.4.211.245";branch=z9hG4bK881C2564
From: "anonymous" <sip:anonymous at anonymous.invalid>;tag=20B9158-2341
To: <sip:31172759442 at 213.239.5.69>
Call-ID: 257F727-EFFE11E0-8B2CF4AB-C7084FB4 at 212.4.211.245
Supported: 100rel,timer,replaces
Min-SE:  1800
Allow: INVITE, OPTIONS, BYE, CANCEL, ACK, PRACK, COMET, REFER, SUBSCRIBE,
NOTIFY, INFO, UPDATE, REGISTER
CSeq: 101 INVITE
Max-Forwards: 69
Contact: <sip:0654331151 at 212.4.211.245:5060>
Expires: 180
Allow-Events: telephone-event
Content-Type: application/sdp
Content-Length: 306
Remote-Party-ID: "anonymous" <sip:anonymous at anonymous.invalid
>;party=calling;screen=yes;privacy=full
To-Hint: sip:draytec at test.winitu.com
To-Number-Hint: 31172759442
From-Hint: sip:31654331151 at test.winitu.com
From-Number-Hint: sip:31654331151 at test.winitu.com

v=0
o=CiscoSystemsSIP-GW-UserAgent 3678 740 IN IP4 212.4.211.245
s=SIP Call
c=IN IP4 212.4.211.245
t=0 0
m=audio 16462 RTP/AVP 8 18 101
c=IN IP4 212.4.211.245
a=rtpmap:8 PCMA/8000
a=rtpmap:18 G729/8000
a=fmtp:18 annexb=yes
a=rtpmap:101 telephone-event/8000
a=fmtp:101 0-16
a=direction:passive


regards,
Keith
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sipforum.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20111011/e9f96251/attachment-0002.html>