The loose-routing flag on the route header was introduced in RFC 3261. If the carrier cannot handle loose routing this is a fairly good indication that it is using pre-RFC 3261 stack ( although this is not necessarily the case ).
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 1:54 PM, Tony Graziano <[email protected]> wrote: > In this case I think the carrier sucks raw eggs, but not just because of > this... > the ;lr indicator tells the proxy where the calls is sent that there are is > not just the single route entry as a valid target in the route header. > Strict versus loose routing (there are more than one "right answer"). > Route: <sip:loligo.com;lr> > <sip:proxy01.lologo.com;lr> > <sip:1.2.3.4;lr> > > > On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 1:20 PM, Douglas Hubler <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Not knowing a whole lot about this parameter, I think it should be >> configurable with full description on implications of turning it on. >> >> On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 10:51 AM, Tony Graziano >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Does anyone have an opinion that the tag >> > <loose-route-invite>true</loose-route-invite> >> > should be made configurable in sipxbridge? >> > I ran across one tempermental ITSP that requires it (supposedly). I can >> > edit >> > it and restart services to temporarily see if that changes the "reason' >> > they >> > are failing the calls (according to them). >> > I suspect that as a TRUNK, ;lr is not an issue, but it is on the >> > handsets >> > only depending on the switch/switch type you connect to. I think this is >> > a >> > case of an ITSP "calling" themselves commercial and really centered >> > around >> > residential/consumer traffic so they require this to be OFF from the >> > client >> > (i.e.no ;lr tag). This is the kind of thing that makes me want to say >> > "run >> > very fast, get a real provider", but I wanted opinions. >> > I suspect it might be relatively easy to add the option to make it >> > configurable, but realistically, is it resonable for a trunk provider to >> > refuse a call because it is there. I think it is NOT reasonable, but >> > that's >> > me. >> > -- >> > ====================== >> > Tony Graziano, Manager >> > Telephone: 434.984.8430 >> > sip: [email protected] >> > Fax: 434.326.5325 >> > >> > Email: [email protected] >> > >> > LAN/Telephony/Security and Control Systems Helpdesk: >> > Telephone: 434.984.8426 >> > sip: [email protected] >> > >> > Helpdesk Contract Customers: >> > http://support.myitdepartment.net >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > sipx-dev mailing list >> > [email protected] >> > List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev/ >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> sipx-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev/ > > > > -- > ====================== > Tony Graziano, Manager > Telephone: 434.984.8430 > sip: [email protected] > Fax: 434.326.5325 > > Email: [email protected] > > LAN/Telephony/Security and Control Systems Helpdesk: > Telephone: 434.984.8426 > sip: [email protected] > > Helpdesk Contract Customers: > http://support.myitdepartment.net > > > _______________________________________________ > sipx-dev mailing list > [email protected] > List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev/ > -- M. Ranganathan _______________________________________________ sipx-dev mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev/
