Dear Attila, So you are saying that whatever is coming in FTAG are correct as below?
* <sip:79.99.193.141;lr;ftag=4F6C3030343338350007D3E5;vsf=AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA--;vst=AAAAAHQEBAMFAAUABwZzAg0deQ4XHwAKAAAKCy4xNDE-;did=9b.dcc08423> * Thanks, Nitin On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 2:56 AM, Attila Sipos <[email protected]>wrote: > > 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
