Re: [Partysip-dev] Problems forwarding with Route header + syntax

[Aymeric Moizard]

In the following message:

INVITE sip:address@hidden:5060 SIP/2.0
From: Babbler <sip:address@hidden>;tag=1651094
To: sip:address@hidden
Call-ID: address@hidden
CSeq: 1 INVITE
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 89.101.0.30:5060;branch=z9hGb4K16510945702676
Contact: sip:89.101.0.30
Max-Forwards: 70
Route: <sip:89.101.0.30:8060;lr>

The Pre-route set is OK.
But: The request-uri contains "cognitronics.com:5060" which
is not equals to "cognitronics.com:8060" where your proxy is
supposed to run!

Because of the port is different than the one where partysip
is running, partysip think it must forward the request to
a SIP endpoint or proxy running on "cognitronics.com:5060".

The behavior of partysip is correct!

Note that, if you do not specify a port number, the proxy will search in
the local database of registred users.

Aymeric

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003, Sahil Rangari wrote:

> Hi,
>
> First, I would like to thank you for helping me with partysip installation.
>
> I am testing some call scenarios with our sip stack. I am facing one
> particular error/incomplete call, and a syntax conflict on part of
> osip/partysip.
>
> *******************
> *******************
> 1)
> Test set:
>
>     X ua ----------------P partysip ------------ Y ua
> (89.101.0.30:5060)     (89.101.0.30:8060)    (89.3.8.8:5060)
>
> - Y successfully registers with partysip as "address@hidden"
> - X sends an Invite to P with Y's address of record.
> - P forwards Invite to Y after record-routing itself.
>
> ==============
> a)
> INVITE sip:address@hidden:5060 SIP/2.0
> ...........
> Route: <sip:89.101.0.30:8060;lr>
>
> In the above call, if Invite has a pre-loaded 'Route' header,
> P does not forwards it to Y. Instead, P returns a 503 to X.
>
> The reason the Route header is present in the initial Invite is
> that P serves as a outbound proxy for X. According to
> RFC 3261, Section 8.1.1.1 and 8.1.2, it is desirable
> to have a preloaded route designating the outbound proxy
> (which is P in this example).
>
> ======================
> b)
>
> INVITE sip:address@hidden:5060 SIP/2.0
> ...........
>
> If the pre-loaded route header is not include in the Invite,
> it is resolved and forwarded to Y and the rest of call is completed.
>
> Fwded as -
> INVITE sip:address@hidden;maddr=89.3.8.8 SIP/2.0
> .......
> =======================
> c)
> INVITE sip:89.3.8.8:5060 SIP/2.0
> .........
> Route: <sip:89.101.0.30:8060;lr>
>
> If the Invite request URI does not have address-of-record
> of Y, but it's IP address, and the pre-loaded Route header,
> the Invite is forwarded to Y and the rest of the call completes.
> ===========================
>
> Could you point out as to why a) and c) behave differently.
> A look at sip trace shouws the following difference for/without Route.
>
> with route header:
> <../../../partysip/plugin/ls_sfull/ls_sfull.c: 222> ls_sfull plugin: mandate
> statefull handling for route.
>
> without route header:
> <../../../partysip/plugin/ls_sfull/ls_sfull.c: 188> ls_sfull plugin: checking 
> if
> we are responsible for request-URI 'cognitronics.com'
> <../../../partysip/plugin/ls_localdb/ls_localdb.c: 278> ls_localdb plugin: 1
> locations found!
>
> Attached are the config file and trace file for your consideration.
> (Please ignore the 408s etc. in the log).
>
> ****************************************
> ****************************************
>
> 2)
>   Whenever Partysip server forwards the request, it decrements the
> Max-Forwards as required. But it also changes header to lowercase viz.
> "max-forwards", which is not the right syntax as per RFC 3261. Could you
> give me pointer as to
>   this problem is with the osip/partysip
>   encoder(struct-to-text)/decoder(parser).
>
>
>
> Thanks and Regards,
> Sahil
>
>