Record-Route: header - is it really necessary?
The optional "Record-Route" header, as explained in RFC 3261, is inserted by SIP proxies that wish to remain in the signalling path for the duration of the dialogue:
Quote:
I do not understand why (apart from, perhaps collecting statistics on call minutes) it is useful for sipbroker.com to remain in the signalling path after the call is established. I am not aware of any "mid-call features" that the sipbroker.com proxy is providing. I had originally thought that the "Record-Route:" header was somewhat essential for "NAT traversal", however I now understand that that is taken care of with the "Via: " headers, and use of the "rport" parameter, etc. The problem with sipbroker.com adding the "Record-Route:" header is that it then requires sipbroker.com to add the loose-routing parameter: "lr", which causes incompatibilities: Quote:
Although RFC 3261 explains the "lr" parameter as just ";lr", in order to "make some broken UAs happy", sipbroker.com adds "=on" to the "lr" parameter: Code:
INVITE sip:050xxxxxxxx@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:5060 SIP/2.0 It would seem to me that, if sipbroker.com simply did away with inserting the "Record-Route:" header, thereby avoiding having to use the "lr" parameter, it would please everybody, improve compatibility (interoperability), and improve conformance to RFC 3261. |
SIP-IX does not use "Record-Route:" header
I have tried out Keiichi Honda's "SIP-IX" service, which does a similar numeric-prefix to SIP domain name connection service.
SIP IX - The SIP INVITE message shown in the dial-a-spiral test shows that sipix.jp does not add the "Record-Route:" header. The SIP-IX service therefore avoids potential problems caused by "lr=on" / "lr". "Dial-a-spiral" test: http://forum.voxalot.com/sip-broker-....html#post9690 Code:
INVITE sip:050xxxxxxxx@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:5060 SIP/2.0 64.34.162.221 = sipbroker.com 58.158.169.93 = sipix.jp aaa.bbb.ccc.d = SIP device originating the call) |
therefore "Record-Route: " header not necessary
Quote:
|
Hi v164,
We will take a look at this request after the 16th. . |
Now Removed
The record-route processing has now been removed from SIP Broker. Please confirm that the new SIP Broker call handling is working as requested.
Thanks. . |
sipbroker.com compatibility boost
Quote:
Here are the SIP INVITE messages that arrived at my SIP phone when calling via SIP Broker using various methods: (My PSTN number +8150xxxxxxxx is mapped to the SIP URI 050xxxxxxxx@221.xx.xx.yyy at e164.org) 1. Ordinary SIP call to 8150xxxxxxxx@sipbroker.com (dialing from my Atcom AT-530 at 221.xx.xx.xx) RECEIVE << 64.34.162.221:5060 ( 64.34.162.221 = sipbroker.com ) Code:
INVITE sip:050xxxxxxxx@221.xx.xx.xx.yyy SIP/2.0 2. Calling via the Brisbane (Australia) SIP Broker PSTN gateway ( +61 7 3018 2881 ) RECEIVE << 64.34.162.221:5060 Code:
INVITE sip:050xxxxxxxx@221.xx.xx.xx.yyy SIP/2.0 3. “spiral” test, via Keiichi HONDA's SIP-IX service. Caller -> sipix.jp -> sipbroker.com -> sipix.jp -> sipbroker.com -> destination ( 58.158.169.93 = sipix.jp ) RECEIVE << 64.34.162.221:5060 Code:
INVITE sip:050xxxxxxxx@221.xx.xx.xx.yyy SIP/2.0 4. Using Web Callback (WebCall), as explained here: http://forum.voxalot.com/e164-org-su...html#post10967 RECEIVE << 64.34.162.221:5060 Code:
INVITE sip:050xxxxxxxx@221.xx.xx.yyy SIP/2.0 ( 82xxxx = six-digit VoXaLot number ) The “Record-Route:” header, together with “lr=on” is now gone from the calls routed via SIP Broker. All of the above calls should now work with SIP devices that are fussy about “lr” / “lr=on”, including the NTT-West SVIII ADSL modem, which I was using last year. I think this is an important improvement in interoperability. The SVIII modem is representative of the most widely used unlocked SIP ATA in Japan – those provided for use with the bundled “IP Phone” services provided by Japanese ISPs using NTT-West / NTT-East “Flets” ADSL connection. I intend to write in more detail about this at a later date, because supporting these SIP devices would be, at this point in time, the most effective way to drive adoption of ENUM and VoIP peering among Japanese VoIP users. As a final example, number (5) doesn't use the sipbroker.com SIP proxy – VoXaLot does the ENUM lookup and routes the call (note the different IP address from which the SIP INVITE arrived). 5. Using VoXaLot (ENUM match in dial plan) RECEIVE << 64.34.173.199:5060 ( 64.34.173.199 = us.voxalot.com ) Code:
INVITE sip:050xxxxxxxx@221.xx.xx.xx.yyy SIP/2.0 Edited: I don't have the SVIII modem myself anymore, but I know some people who do, so I'll test that when I can. |
Techincal X Functional
Hello folks,
I appreciate the willingness of SipBroker to be faithful to the RFC 3261. But we should be aware that the law exists to serve men, and not the opposite. The technical matters must match, first of all, the functional matters (real needs) of the users. Since this implemtentation (July) I and many users now have problems when receiving incoming calls from PSTN. This issue is described in details on http://forum.voxalot.com/sip-broker-...-not-work.html I would like to to ask to SipBroker team to kindly analyze this issue and, hopefully, returns to the original configuration. Thank you to hear me. Best regards, André Silveira |
All times are GMT. The time now is 08:34 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.