Interesting. But I'm not certain I buy it. CSeqs only make sense within
a dialog. F13 doesn't contain the To-tag abc, so it ought not be
expected to use a valid CSeq for that dialog.
A different issue here is that that F13 ought not go to UAS1 at all. But
we treat it as a new transaction, and don't expect the proxy to maintain
any history across transactions, so we don't have a way to prevent that.
There ought to be something in F11 that causes the request to go only to
(in this case) UA2. (In general to whichever node generated the
challenge, which might have been a proxy rather than a UA.)
Paul
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was looking at a problem were were having with a phone and
discovered the following interesting situation with PRACK and INVITEs
that have to be resent with authentication.
Consider an INVITE that gets serially forked to two destinations, the
first one doesn't answer and the second one demands authentication:
UAC Proxy UAS 1 UAS 2
| | | |
F1 | INVITE CSeq 1 | | |
|--------------->| | |
F2 | | INVITE CSeq 1 | |
| |-------------->| |
F3 | | 180 CSeq 1 | |
| | to-tag abc | |
| |<--------------| |
F4 | 180 CSeq 1 | | |
| to-tag abc | | |
|<---------------| | |
F5 | PRACK CSeq 2 | | |
| to-tag abc | | |
|------------------------------->| |
F6 | | 200 CSeq 2 | |
| | to-tag abc | |
|<-------------------------------| |
| | | |
---------------------- delay ------------------------
| | | |
F7 | | CANCEL CSq 1 | |
| |-------------->| |
F8 | | 200 CANCEL | |
| |<--------------| |
F9 | | 487 CSeq 1 | |
| | to-tag abc | |
| |<--------------| |
F10 | | INVITE CSeq 1 | |
| |------------------------------>|
F11 | | | 407 CSeq 1 |
| | | to-tag def |
| |<------------------------------|
F12 | 407 CSeq 1 | | |
| to-tag def | | |
|<---------------| | |
F13 | INVITE CSeq 2 | | |
|--------------->| | |
F14 | | INVITE CSeq 2 | |
| |-------------->| |
F15 | | 500 CSeq 2 | |
| | to-tag pqr | |
| |<--------------| |
F16 | 500 CSeq 2 | | |
| to-tag pqr | | |
|<---------------| | |
| | | |
Since the PRACK F5 is sent within a forked dialog, we don't think of
it as using up CSeq number space in the space of out-of-dialog
requests. So when it comes time to re-send the INVITE F13, it's easy
to think that you can just use a CSeq one higher than the original
INVITE F1. But transaction processing at UAS 1 is likely to notice
that it's already seen CSeq 2 with that Call-Id. It looks like one
must make sure that the re-sent INVITE has a CSeq higher than has been
used in any derived dialog of the original INVITE.
Dale
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip
Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip
Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip
