[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [Linphone-users]Bugs in Linphone (Route Header+shutdown hangs)

From: Klaus Darilion
Subject: RE: [Linphone-users]Bugs in Linphone (Route Header+shutdown hangs)
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 22:49:29 +0100

> I would like to know wether ser will support a pre-route set 
> with a different host? Can you confirm that?

I have the ser proxy local installed, and sent an INVITE to it with the
route header:
Route: <;lr>

my ser proxy forwards the request to the iptel proxy and removes the
route header. But the INVITE of the forwarded message looks like this:

and the iptel proxy replies with 404 Not Found - seems like ser acts
like a mixture of strict (rewrite of the request uri) and loose routing.

I would say the rewritting of the first ser proxy is wrong, because it
shouldn't rewrite the request uri.

Furthermore I found in the RFC3261 that if the route header is the same
as the proxy it should remove it and forward the message. Looks like ser
is playing wrong. We should write the iptel guys an email, I'm sure they
know more about this.

> > What is it good for to have a "pre-route set" when the 
> server in the 
> > route header is the same as the one to which the invite is sent?
> By using the Route header, the mechanism to send the request 
> is always the same. In linphone case, this makes the code to 
> send requests simpler as there is no special cases based on 
> the context of the dialog (first invite without a dialog, 
> second invite without a dialog (authentication), re-invite 
> within a dialog.
> This makes the application easier to code, maintain. :)
> Hope you are convinced.

Not sure yet - this routing behavior is to complicated for me so I can't
(will not) verify it. I hope your right! :-)

> I don't have gnome2 so I can't tell you.

Good for you - IMHO gnome2 is very slow. :-(


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]