[SR-Users] Should I ignore Route header in ACK?

[Yuriy Gorlichenko]

Just in continue of the discussion
forund in the RFC3261 12.1.2  (UAC behaivor) this:

   The route set MUST be set to the list of URIs in the Record-Route
   header field from the response, taken in reverse order and preserving
   all URI parameters.  If no Record-Route header field is present in
   the response, the route set MUST be set to the empty set.  This route
   set, even if empty, overrides any pre-existing route set for future
   requests in this dialog.  The remote target MUST be set to the URI
   from the Contact header field of the response.



2018-07-01 11:48 GMT+03:00 Yuriy Gorlichenko <ovoshlook at gmail.com>:

> Hm... Nice guess
> I will try to check it
> Thank you so much for clarify these things Alex!
>
> 2018-07-01 11:35 GMT+03:00 Alex Balashov <abalashov at evaristesys.com>:
>
>> On Sun, Jul 01, 2018 at 11:27:36AM +0300, Yuriy Gorlichenko wrote:
>>
>> > So FS in this case ignores single route header and sends request to the
>> > Provider Contact....
>>
>> If so, that's wrong.
>>
>> I suppose it's possible that it matches the next hop based on IP address
>> alone and not port, but that's radioactively incorrect.
>>
>> --
>> 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/
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
>> sr-users at lists.kamailio.org
>> https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kamailio.org/pipermail/sr-users/attachments/20180702/551199b4/attachment.html>