<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.3.2" -->
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Multiple Via Headers in SIP messages</title>
	<link>http://www.jeremy-mcnamara.com/2008/01/10/multiple-via-headers-in-sip-messages/</link>
	<description>VoIP, Asterisk and OpenSER: News, Information and Tutorials</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 21 Nov 2008 12:42:15 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Wolfram</title>
		<link>http://www.jeremy-mcnamara.com/2008/01/10/multiple-via-headers-in-sip-messages/#comment-2043</link>
		<dc:creator>Wolfram</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Feb 2008 16:06:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.jeremy-mcnamara.com/2008/01/10/multiple-via-headers-in-sip-messages/#comment-2043</guid>
		<description>They are confused, and here is why. RFC 3261 says:

[quote]
8.1.3.3 Vias

   If more than one Via header field value is present in a response, the
   UAC SHOULD discard the message.

      The presence of additional Via header field values that precede
      the originator of the request suggests that the message was
      misrouted or possibly corrupted.
[/quote]

That probably led to the confusion - at least it confused me. It only deals with *responses*, not with *requests*, and says that only the *UAC* (user agent client, the originator of the request that caused the response, which is not neccessarily a user agent) should drop the message, not any proxies in between.

UAC adds Via1
Proxy adds Via2
Proxy adds Via3
SIP arrives at destination, sends a response the same way back
Proxy removes Via3 from response
Proxy removes Via2 from response
UAC should see exactly one Via: Via1, pointing to itself

If a response with more than one Via arrives back at the UAC, something is amiss, and the message should be dropped.

Maybe, if you explain it to them in this way they accept that they indeed have to proxy/route SIP with more than 1 Via-Header, since it's up to the originator of the request (you) to validate that rule. :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>They are confused, and here is why. RFC 3261 says:</p>
<p>[quote]<br />
8.1.3.3 Vias</p>
<p>   If more than one Via header field value is present in a response, the<br />
   UAC SHOULD discard the message.</p>
<p>      The presence of additional Via header field values that precede<br />
      the originator of the request suggests that the message was<br />
      misrouted or possibly corrupted.<br />
[/quote]</p>
<p>That probably led to the confusion - at least it confused me. It only deals with *responses*, not with *requests*, and says that only the *UAC* (user agent client, the originator of the request that caused the response, which is not neccessarily a user agent) should drop the message, not any proxies in between.</p>
<p>UAC adds Via1<br />
Proxy adds Via2<br />
Proxy adds Via3<br />
SIP arrives at destination, sends a response the same way back<br />
Proxy removes Via3 from response<br />
Proxy removes Via2 from response<br />
UAC should see exactly one Via: Via1, pointing to itself</p>
<p>If a response with more than one Via arrives back at the UAC, something is amiss, and the message should be dropped.</p>
<p>Maybe, if you explain it to them in this way they accept that they indeed have to proxy/route SIP with more than 1 Via-Header, since it&#8217;s up to the originator of the request (you) to validate that rule. <img src='http://www.jeremy-mcnamara.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Iñaki Baz Castillo</title>
		<link>http://www.jeremy-mcnamara.com/2008/01/10/multiple-via-headers-in-sip-messages/#comment-1883</link>
		<dc:creator>Iñaki Baz Castillo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 Jan 2008 21:16:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.jeremy-mcnamara.com/2008/01/10/multiple-via-headers-in-sip-messages/#comment-1883</guid>
		<description>Really terrible. Of course, the existence of various VIA headers is essential if the message goes throught various SIP proxies or does a loop in a proxy (so two VIA with same IP but different "branch" will be added).

Really sad if a carrier tries to justify its failures with this argument.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Really terrible. Of course, the existence of various VIA headers is essential if the message goes throught various SIP proxies or does a loop in a proxy (so two VIA with same IP but different &#8220;branch&#8221; will be added).</p>
<p>Really sad if a carrier tries to justify its failures with this argument.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jj</title>
		<link>http://www.jeremy-mcnamara.com/2008/01/10/multiple-via-headers-in-sip-messages/#comment-1853</link>
		<dc:creator>jj</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Jan 2008 19:52:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.jeremy-mcnamara.com/2008/01/10/multiple-via-headers-in-sip-messages/#comment-1853</guid>
		<description>Mike:  Stating that makes me wonder if this company that we are working with has been blatantly lying about how they are dealing with our calls.

However, we have been using this one carrier for many months now, without even so much as considering changing anything on our end - so all along they have been dealing with the two Via headers without any issue, until today........</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mike:  Stating that makes me wonder if this company that we are working with has been blatantly lying about how they are dealing with our calls.</p>
<p>However, we have been using this one carrier for many months now, without even so much as considering changing anything on our end - so all along they have been dealing with the two Via headers without any issue, until today&#8230;&#8230;..</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike Svensen</title>
		<link>http://www.jeremy-mcnamara.com/2008/01/10/multiple-via-headers-in-sip-messages/#comment-1843</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike Svensen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Jan 2008 19:48:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.jeremy-mcnamara.com/2008/01/10/multiple-via-headers-in-sip-messages/#comment-1843</guid>
		<description>I have been told by L3 that their equipment cannot deal with Multiple Via headers - are you using L3?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have been told by L3 that their equipment cannot deal with Multiple Via headers - are you using L3?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
