Re: [reSIProcate-users] register Record route is taken into account?
Hi Francesco,
Can you please post a log snippet that shows what you are saying?. It's too
difficult to guess what's going on without seeing the messaging.
Scott
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jan 17, 2017, at 4:39 AM, Francesco Lamonica <alienpenguin@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
> i am experimenting a dum application with the Clearwater IMS project.
> What i see from a wireshark trace is that the IMS responds to my register
> request with a response including a Record-route header.
> Now, this Record-route points to an internal component of the IMS image (i am
> using the All-in-one image) scscf.cw-aio (that if i am not mistaken is acting
> as the IMS registrar)
> Now if i try to send an INVITE, resiprocate tries to ask DNS entry for
> scscf.cw-aio and since, obviously, such an entry does not exist fails with
> 503.
> But my point is... why is resiprocate trying to resolve it in the first
> place? As stated in rfc3261 REGISTERs do not establish a dialog and any
> possible Record-route headers should be ignored (section 10.2)
>
> Do you have any suggestion / hints / explanantion for this behaviour?
>
> thanks
> _______________________________________________
> resiprocate-users mailing list
> resiprocate-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> List Archive: http://list.resiprocate.org/archive/resiprocate-users/