Record-Route headers often have opaque parameters which are not in any draft or RFC. Such parameters have no meaning except to the entity which added them.
For Record-Route all you have to do is reflect the route back. When you use the learnt route in a Route header you have to quote the full learnt route including all its parameters. As long as the parameters follow the general grammar rules, it should not matter what is the content. So in the case of the ftag, it looks legal and should be used as is supplied (along with the rest of the route information). So, your SBC should not be rejecting it due to the ftag header. If it does, the SBC is behaving wrongly. (When I get a problem like this I often strip out the suspect header and try to send the message using something like SIPP to see if the message is still rejected) Regards Attila -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] on behalf of Nitin Kapoor Sent: Tue 22/03/2011 00:20 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] Ftag Parameter in Record-Route Dear All, Could anyone please help me out on this. Thanks, Nitin On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 5:53 PM, Nitin Kapoor <[email protected]>wrote: > Dear All, > > i am facing the problem with one of my customer where i noticed that > Record-Route header containing the "ftag" parameter. > > INVITE sip:[email protected] SIP/2.0 > Record-Route: > <sip:79.99.193.141;lr;ftag=4F6C3030343338350007D3E5;vsf=AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA--;vst=AAAAAHQEBAMFAAUABwZzAg0deQ4XHwAKAAAKCy4xNDE-;did=9b.dcc08423> > Content-Type:application/sdp > To:sip:[email protected] > From:sip:[email protected] > ;cpc=ordinary;tag=4F6C3030343338350007D3E5 > Privacy:none > P-Asserted-Identity:sip:[email protected];cpc=ordinary > Supported:100rel,timer > Expires:120 > Date:Thu, 10 Mar 2011 20:02:01 GMT > Session-Expires:3600 > Min-SE:90 > Call-ID:01FF945D4C81400000054AC4@TB004385_VOIP0 > CSeq:1 INVITE > Route:<sip:79.99.193.141:5060;lr;transport=udp> > Max-Forwards:69 > Timestamp:512997 > User-Agent:TB004385 > Contact:sip:[email protected]:5061 > Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 79.99.193.141;branch=z9hG4bK1f07.16311b13.0 > Via:SIP/2.0/UDP 79.99.193.138:5060 > ;received=79.99.193.138;branch=z9hG4bKDD5A2E7439308FCEA1D45366471A437C;rport=5060 > Content-Length:344 > > Now above is my INVITE which is coming from UAC to SBC and my SBC is > sending 400 Bad Request to UAC. My doubt is that FTAG is containing the > invalid correct hence SBC is unable to understand the nature of this invite > hence sending the 400. > > Could anyone please help me out to understand this? also is there any limit > for the character in FTAG? > > Thanks, > Nitin Kapoor > _______________________________________________ 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
