On Mon, 2009-11-02 at 05:46 -0800, Scott Lawrence wrote: > On Sun, 2009-11-01 at 17:32 -0500, Dale Worley wrote: > > On Sun, 2009-11-01 at 13:08 -0800, Scott Lawrence wrote: > > > Why do you conclude that sipXbridge modifies the contact for the benefit > > > of the proxy? > > > > A couple of days ago I talked to Ranga, who mentioned that the proxy > > does not handle maddr parameters correctly, and I have some vague memory > > that he said that sipXbridge removed them. In any case, we have to > > worry about the situation, since if sipXbridges does *not* remove the > > maddr parameter, the proxy *will* handle the request incorrectly. > > I don't understand... if there was a bug in the proxy not handling maddr > correctly, why wouldn't we _fix_ it instead of doing a workaround in > sipXbridge that is likely to break something else?
I didn't write it, I am just observing. > Looking at the trace in 6909, it's clear that sipXbridge is breaking the > routing between frames 52 and 53 - it strips the maddr but just drops > the information.... > > It might have worked if the bridge had added the maddr value to the > record-route to preserve the routing, but that's probably not the right > thing to do. More interestingly, what is the right thing to do to fix XX-6909? Dale _______________________________________________ sipx-dev mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev sipXecs IP PBX -- http://www.sipfoundry.org/
