Hello Dale/Attila, Thanks for your help on this. But i am sorry to asking you again about this.
Is it making sense to you after ftag parameter. Record-Route: <sip:79.99.193.141;lr;ftag=4F6C3030343338350007D3E5;* vsf=AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA--;vst=AAAAAHQEBAMFAAUABwZzAg0deQ4XHwAKAAAKCy4xNDE-;did=9b.dcc08423> * Thanks, Nitin On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 10:45 AM, Worley, Dale R (Dale) <[email protected]>wrote: > In a sense, the SBC is allowed to reject any request it doesn't like for > any reason, because it is a B2BUA. > > But a well-behaved SBC should accept any syntactically valid Record-Route > header, and as far as I can tell without sending the request through a > parser, this Record-Route appears to be syntactically correct. Note the > language in RFC 3261 section 12.1.1 emphasizes that SIP elements must be > able to correctly handle Record-Route values that contain parameters that > they do not recognize. > > In order to further diagnose this problem, I would follow Attila's advice, > using SIPP to send a version of the request that had the suspected parameter > removed to see how the SBC responds to it. Or you could contact the SBC > vendor directly. > > It's possible that the SBC is rejecting the request for some entirely > different reason. Does the SBC generate a log file that you can examine to > determine why it doesn't like the request? > > Dale > _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
