[SIPForum-discussion] UNKNOWN Transport type specified in VIA header

[munna kumar]

Hi All,

Request you to please comment on this.

Thanks & Regards,
Munna Kumar
Tel:- +91-8447812689

On 27 April 2016 at 08:19, munna kumar <munna.aakash13 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> I forgot to write the third option under correct behavior head. same has
> been added in below mail.
>
> Request you all to please comment on this which is the correct behavior.
> 1.       Our implementation is correct or,
> 2.       Call gets successful by using transport on which request is
> received (TCP/UDP). or
> 3.       400 response should be in both cases (TCP/UDP).
>
> Thanks & Regards,
> Munna Kumar
>
>
> On 26 April 2016 at 15:32, munna kumar <munna.aakash13 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>>
>> I have some doubt of the conception of VIA header transport, problem
>> description are as follows:
>>
>> Currently we are supporting only TCP and UDP transport to send and
>> receive a message with peer. If UAS receives a SIP message (over UDP/TCP in
>> our case) from peer and in this case there is only one VIA header present
>> and transport type of this VIA header in UNKNOWN (Here, UNKNOWN transport
>> type means either we are not supporting this transport or the transport
>> specified in VIA header is INVALID). Now, what should be the behavior of
>> UAS? Will UAS rejects this message with 400 “inconsistent transport” or
>> call gets successful over transport on which request is received (TCP/UDP).
>>
>>
>>
>> *Example: UAS receives following message from peer:*
>>
>> INVITE sip:10.203.8.137:5060;transport=udp SIP/2.0
>> Via: SIP/2.0/*UNKNOWN* 172.21.149.235:5030
>> ;branch=z9hG4bK*002e-00000001-001e
>> From: <sip:uac at xyz.com>;tag=0082-00000001-0f8c
>> To: sip:uas@ xyz.com
>> Call-ID: 0082-00000001-0f8c56539bac-20fb404c-90a970 at sipua
>> CSeq: 1 INVITE
>> Max-Forwards: 30
>> Contact: sip:172.21.149.235:5030
>> Allow: INVITE, ACK, BYE, CANCEL, UPDATE, PRACK
>>
>>
>>
>> *For above scenario our current implementation are as follows:*
>> Our application used default transport UDP in case of UNKNOWN transport
>> specified in via header (*taking reference of RFC 2543 section 6.40.5
>> Syntax*). And if transport on which request is received is different
>> from transport in via header,  a 400 response is returned. Hence, in above
>> case call gets successful only if message receives over UDP (since, we are
>> using default transport UDP in case of UNKNOWN VIA transport). But, if
>> message receives over TCP and UNKNOWN transport specified in VIA header
>> then call gets rejected with 400 “inconsistent transport”.
>>
>>
>>
>> Request you all to please comment on this which is the correct behavior.
>> 1.       Our implementation is correct or,
>> 2.       Call gets successful by using transport on which request is
>> received (TCP/UDP). or
>>
>>
>
>> Your inputs are highly appreciated.
>>
>>
>> Thanks & Regards,
>> Munna Kumar
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sipforum.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20160503/295c4d72/attachment-0002.html>