Thank you. This is where I easily get mixed up, because an ACK sounds like it should be a reply to the 200 OK.
On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 at 14:21, Alex Balashov <abalas...@evaristesys.com> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 02:16:50PM +1300, David Cunningham wrote: > > > Thank you. So I was correct other than mixing up the Route and Via > headers. > > Some day I'll get them right... > > :-) > > The Via headers determine the path traversed by replies to a request. > They do not influence request routing, including that of in-dialog > requests. > > So, for example, with an initial INVITE that traverses a chain of proxies > which do _not_ add Record-Route headers, subsequent in-dialog requests > (including the e2e ACK) will go directly to the remote target (Contact). > However, the replies within that INVITE transaction will still traverse > the entire chain on their way back to the recipient, because the INVITE > will arrive at its final destination with a stack of Via droppings added > by every intermediate proxy. But this has no bearing on future requests. > > -- > Alex Balashov | Principal | Evariste Systems LLC > > Tel: +1-706-510-6800 / +1-800-250-5920 (toll-free) > Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/, http://www.csrpswitch.com/ > _______________________________________________ > Sip-implementors mailing list > Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu > https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors > -- David Cunningham, Voisonics Limited http://voisonics.com/ USA: +1 213 221 1092 New Zealand: +64 (0)28 2558 3782 _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
