Nearly right, the only thing you're missing is a request doesn't have to be sent directly to the address in the Request URI. In this case you will sent it to the address in the maddr using the port in the Request URI. (i.e. spare.caller.com port 5080 in the example)
James > -----Original Message----- > From: Lei Liang [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 16 October 2001 17:37 > To: James Undery > Cc: Lei Liang; sip implementation mail list > Subject: RE: [Sip-implementors] any difference between the tow > requests?see the example inside. > > > hi, james, the rfc said the USC should send the request to > the maddr using > the port parameter. but it can not be shown in the request, > can it? and > the port parameter should be copied to the request-uri, > shouldn't it? so, > in this case, the next hop the request will be sent is not the one > expressed by request-URI. then why we still use the old > request-URI but > not a new one indicated by redirection response? > cheers. > lei > > On Tue, 16 Oct 2001, James Undery wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > Your answer is in section 6.13 of rfc2543, the paragraph > about 3xx and > > 485 responses describes this behaviour. > > > > James > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > > > Lei Liang > > > Sent: 16 October 2001 17:18 > > > To: sip implementation mail list > > > Subject: [Sip-implementors] any difference between the tow > > > requests?see > > > the example inside. > > > > > > > > > hi, everybody, > > > I am reading some examples in rfc2543. but i am > confused by the > > > following one: > > > > > > > ================================================================== > > > C->F: INVITE sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] SIP/2.0 > > > From: sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > To: Alice <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Call-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > CSeq: 1 INVITE > > > > > > The local firewall at caller.com happens to be > > > overloaded and thus > > > redirects the call from Charlie to a secondary server S: > > > > > > F->C: SIP/2.0 302 Moved temporarily > > > From: sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > To: Alice <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Call-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > CSeq: 1 INVITE > > > Contact: > > > <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:5080;maddr=spare.caller.com> > > > > > > Based on this response, Charlie directs the same > > > invitation to the > > > secondary server spare.caller.com at port 5080, but > maintains the > > > same Request-URI as before: > > > > > > C->S: INVITE sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] SIP/2.0 > > > From: sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > To: Alice <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Call-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > CSeq: 2 INVITE > > > ================================================================ > > > the second INVITE are exactly the same. the only difference > > > is C->F and > > > C->S. does it means anything? I thought the UAC will > take the maddr > > > parameter in the response as the new REQUESE-URI, won't it? > > > cheers. > > > lei > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Sip-implementors mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors > > > _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
