The current Service-Route handling seems to be wrong.
We believe that Service-Route should be copied to the Route-Header field of
any SIP request following a REGISTER, but shouldn't be used as target for
e.g. INVITES.

Regards

----- Original Message -----
From: "Olivier Beytrison" olivier@heliosnet.org
To: "pjsip embedded/DSP SIP discussion" pjsip@lists.pjsip.org
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 2:09 PM
Subject: [pjsip] Service-route overriding proxy

The current Service-Route handling seems to be wrong.
We believe that Service-Route should be copied to the Route element of any
SIP request following a REGISTER, but shouldn't be used as target for
e.g. INVITES.

Regards

----- Original Message -----
From: "Olivier Beytrison" olivier@heliosnet.org
To: "pjsip embedded/DSP SIP discussion" pjsip@lists.pjsip.org
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 2:09 PM
Subject: [pjsip] Service-route overriding proxy

This message has left accidently :) and is wrong.

Olivier Beytrison wrote:

If you want a proxy to be visited regardless of Service-Route, then
you need to configure it as --outbound, not --proxy. Please see my
post on 25/11 about the difference between the two.

-benny

Roland Klabunde wrote:

Could this be because of the lack of ";lr" in the S-R URI?

-benny

Hi Benny,

Hmm. Not sure. My montiorings:

1. No specification of service-route in config

• Register OK, server returns service route pointing to scscf:6060
• Invite is blocked by the registrar with error "Bad request - not following
  indicated service route". The request has been sent to pcscf:5060

2. Specification of service-route in config

• Register as above
• Invite is now sent to scscf:6060 (as specified in service route). This
  ends up in no response.

Shouldn't the Ua send the Invite to pcscf:5060, providing the received
service route somewhere in the INVITE header in order to let the pcscf know,
where to route the request?

As far as I can remember there was no ;lr in the service route. What would
that change (besides the fact that I can't control the IMS platform)?

Regards

----- Original Message -----
From: "Benny Prijono" bennylp@pjsip.org
To: "pjsip embedded/DSP SIP discussion" pjsip@lists.pjsip.org
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 4:23 PM
Subject: Re: [pjsip] Service-route overriding proxy

There is a lr in the Service-Route. And looking at your message below, I
guess you're using OpenIMSCore as well.

Service-Route: sip:orig@scscf.domain.net:6060;lr
that's the one I receive.

Now my concern is, if we imagine the following scenario :
I have 2 accounts on different operators

I register on both of them, but if I have to put an outbound_proxy to
the proxy of one of my operator, how am I going to contact my second
operator ?

I really don't think that the right way to do, and that's why I join Roland.

Regards,

Olivier B.

Roland Klabunde a écrit :

--

Olivier Beytrison
Telecommunication Engineer
Mobile: +41 (0)78 619 73 53
Mail: olivier@heliosnet.org
GPG: 0x4FB83528 http://pgp.mit.edu/

So I should have received it too :) But I'm at my home desk now and, so I
can't doublecheck. But I believe you, of course.

Let's wait for Benny's comments.

Regards

----- Original Message -----
From: "Olivier Beytrison" olivier@heliosnet.org
To: "pjsip embedded/DSP SIP discussion" pjsip@lists.pjsip.org
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 5:41 PM
Subject: Re: [pjsip] Service-route overriding proxy

There is a lr in the Service-Route. And looking at your message below, I
guess you're using OpenIMSCore as well.

Service-Route: sip:orig@scscf.domain.net:6060;lr
that's the one I receive.

Now my concern is, if we imagine the following scenario :
I have 2 accounts on different operators

I register on both of them, but if I have to put an outbound_proxy to
the proxy of one of my operator, how am I going to contact my second
operator ?

I really don't think that the right way to do, and that's why I join Roland.

Regards,

Olivier B.

Roland Klabunde a écrit :

--

Olivier Beytrison
Telecommunication Engineer
Mobile: +41 (0)78 619 73 53
Mail: olivier@heliosnet.org
GPG: 0x4FB83528 http://pgp.mit.edu/

Visit our blog: http://blog.pjsip.org

pjsip mailing list
pjsip@lists.pjsip.org
http://lists.pjsip.org/mailman/listinfo/pjsip_lists.pjsip.org

Roland Klabunde wrote:

Frankly I'm not sure. I thought that if PCSCF wants to stay in the
path of subsequent requests, it should have been added in the S-R
list by the registrar. That's what I concluded from (briefly)
looking at the examples in RFC 3608. Or is this a wrong interpretation?

-benny