El Thursday 21 August 2008 16:15:25 Brett Tate escribió:
> Is the following what rfc3261 is attempting to communicate?
I think so but just a question:
> 1) Dialog forming INVITE 1xx/2xx creates route set based upon
> record-route and sets remote target per Contact.
>
> 2) Original INVITE's subsequent 101-199 has no impact upon a known
> dialog's route set and remote target.
>
> 3) Original INVITE's 2xx resets route set per received/missing
> record-route and does not set (or update) per Contact.
>
> 4) Retargeting (excluding original INVITE) request's 2xx within dialog
> allow the remote target to be updated.
1) You receive a 180 wihout Contact and Record-Route.
2) Later a 183:
Record-Route: <sip:server1>
3) Later a 183:
Record-Route: <sip:server2>
Contact: sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
4) Later a 200:
Record-Route: <sip:server3>
Contact: sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
So the dialog data for the UAC will be:
- route set: <sip:server3>
- remote target: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Explanation:
1) route set and remote target is null:
- route set: null
- remote target: null
2) Is a 1xx with "RR" so sets route set:
- route set: <sip:server1>
- remote target: null
3) Is a 1xx with "Contact" and "RR". remote set is not updated since it
already exists. Sets remote target:
- route set: <sip:server1>
- remote target: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
4) Is a 2xx with "Contact" and "RR". route set is updated since it's a 2xx.
remote target is not updated since it already exists.
- route set: <sip:server3>
- remote target: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Is it correct? In this case... WHY IS SIP SOOOOOOO COMPLEX???
--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
