Thanks for your pointers. I still have some problem. Even though the request has route-header proxy does a location look up. (According to RFC this is not ruled out explicitly). The location lookup returns multiple targets. Now the request is forwarded to multiple request-uri but to the same host pointed by the route-header.
How do we resolve this? If we already know that the request should go to a specific host given in the route-header field, why do we have to do a location search? There is one place in RFC that mentions a no-op location lookup, where the same request-uri is returned. Section 16.5 "For example, a trivial location service is a "no-op", where the target URI is equal to the incoming request URI. The request is sent to a specific next hop proxy for further processing" Should I be using this kind of no-op lookup, when route-header is present? Hope I haven't missed something here. Thanks Sachin ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 7:59 PM Subject: RE: [Sip-implementors] Target set caluclation & Route header > Check section 16.6 items 2 and 6. > > Regards, > Hisham > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ext Sachin Shenoy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 4:03 PM > > To: Sp.Raja; Sip-Implementors > > Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] Target set caluclation & Route header > > > > > > > > Do you think following lines (lines within #) have to be added within > > RFC section 16.5 Determining Request Targets > > > > > > "If the domain of the Request-URI indicates a domain this element is > > not responsible for, the Request-URI MUST be placed into the target > > set as the only target, and the element MUST proceed to the task of > > Request Forwarding (Section 16.6). > > > > There are many circumstances in which a proxy might receive a > > request for a domain it is not responsible for. A > > firewall proxy > > handling outgoing calls (the way HTTP proxies handle outgoing > > requests) is an example of where this is likely to occur." > > > > #################################### > > # Addition suggested?! > > If the route-header is present, the Request-URI MUST be > > placed into the > > target set as the only target, and the element MUST proceed > > to the task of > > Request Forwarding (Section 16.6). > > # End of Addition. > > ##################################### > > > > "If the target set for the request has not been predetermined as > > described above, this implies that the element is > > responsible for the > > domain in the Request-URI, and the element MAY use > > whatever mechanism > > it desires to determine where to send the request..." > > > > Thanks > > Sachin > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Sp.Raja" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Sachin Shenoy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Cc: "Sip-Implementors" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 6:04 PM > > Subject: RE: [Sip-implementors] Target set caluclation & Route header > > > > > > > Even though it is not explicitly stated, > > > > > > RFC 3261 Sec 20.34 reads > > > > > > The Route header field is used to force routing for a > > request through > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > the listed set of proxies. Examples of the use of the Route header > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > field are in Section 16.12.1. > > > > > > -Sp.Raja > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > > Sachin Shenoy > > > Sent: Thursday, 29 August 2002 6:03 PM > > > To: Sp.Raja > > > Cc: Sip-Implementors > > > Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] Target set caluclation & > > Route header > > > > > > > > > Thanks for you reply. > > > > > > I couldn't find mention of this explicitly anywhere in the > > RFC. Can you > > > please give me any pointer to section within RFC which > > deals with this. > > > > > > I expected section 16.5 Determining Request Targets, to > > explictly mention > > > that if route is present then it would be placed as the > > only entry within > > > the > > > target set. > > > > > > Thanks > > > Sachin > > > > > > > > > comments inline > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > > Sachin Shenoy > > > Sent: Thursday, 29 August 2002 5:33 PM > > > To: Sip-Implementors > > > Subject: [Sip-implementors] Target set caluclation & Route header > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > According to the RFC, If the domain of the request-uri is of proxies > > domain > > > then proxy is responsible for routing the request. What > > would happen if > > > the domain of the request URI is proxies domain, but the > > request also > > > contains route header? > > > > > > What should proxy do? Forward the request to the location > > in the route > > > header? Or do a locations search and forward to the > > locations returned > > > from the search. > > > [Raja] First preference always goes to the Route > > irrespective of whether > > the > > > proxy is responsible for the domain or not > > > > > > Thanks > > > Sachin > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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
