I guess Sip Stack should also have a check of lr parameter.
On 4/3/08, Robert Sparks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The section in RFC3261 on strict routing fixup explains this situation. > The disconnect you have is that you're doing the fixup and _then_ > trying to figure out where to send the message. > RFC3261 says figure out where to send the message and _then_ to do the > fixup if the next hop is a strict router. > > RjS > > On Apr 2, 2008, at 1:33 PM, Mohammad Farooq wrote: > > > Hi Bharat, > > > > Thanks for the reply. I understand somewhat strict routing rule but > > what > > is confusing me is: > > > > ua1 - proxy1 proxy2 proxy3 proxy4 - ua2 > > > > At ua1 the route set is > > <sip:proxy1>,<sip:proxy2>,<sip:proxy3;lr>,<sip:proxy4;lr> > > > > When ua1 want to send request, for example BYE, it will check the > > first > > URI in the route set. Since it is a strict route, ua1 will pop the URI > > from the route set and use it as a requestURI. Now the request at ua1 > > will look like this: > > > > BYE sip:proxy1 > > Route:<sip:proxy2>, > > <sip:proxy3;lr>,<sip:proxy4;lr>,<sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Here is my confusion, since route header has presidence over > > requestURI > > when ua1 send this request to SIP stack, this request will go proxy2 > > not > > proxy1? Isn't that true? When stack parse the route header the first > > address it is going to see is proxy2. This mean request never go to > > proxy1. I know, I am missing something very stupid detail. Thanks. > > > > Mohammad > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Sip-implementors mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors > > _______________________________________________ > Sip-implementors mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors > _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
