[Serusers] MSRTC DLL Bug with SER --- More information,
Possibly SER not RFC 3261 compliant??
jiri at iptel.org
Mon Aug 23 03:57:33 UTC 2004
please send your config file and complete message dumps. Actually
SER should handle obsoleted RFC2543 record-routing too.
At 04:49 AM 8/23/2004, Andrew Mee wrote:
>From MS RTC Newsgroup:
>...The issue here is that the BYE sent by test1 gets routed back to test1. This
>is because RTC1.2 does strict routing. However, on the proxy on the other
>hand does only loose routing and does not provide backward compatibility as
>provisioned in RFC 3261. Test1 receives this BYE out of the blue and a
>result sends a 481....
>According to RFC 3261:
>16.4 Route Information Preprocessing
> The proxy MUST inspect the Request-URI of the request. If the
> Request-URI of the request contains a value this proxy previously
> placed into a Record-Route header field (see Section 16.6 item 4),
> the proxy MUST replace the Request-URI in the request with the last
> value from the Route header field, and remove that value from the
> Route header field. The proxy MUST then proceed as if it received
> this modified request.
> This will only happen when the element sending the request to the
> proxy (which may have been an endpoint) is a strict router. This
> rewrite on receive is necessary to enable backwards compatibility
> with those elements. It also allows elements following this
> specification to preserve the Request-URI through strict-routing
> proxies (see Section 184.108.40.206).
> This requirement does not obligate a proxy to keep state in order
> to detect URIs it previously placed in Record-Route header fields.
> Instead, a proxy need only place enough information in those URIs
> to recognize them as values it provided when they later appear.
>I am trying to write a patch to fix this and I am having limited success, perhaps someone would be better at this?
>Serusers mailing list
>serusers at lists.iptel.org
Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/
More information about the Serusers