On 24 Jun 2008, at 14:54, Benny Prijono wrote: > On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 1:02 PM, Klaus Darilion > <klaus.mailinglists at pernau.at> wrote: >> Ruud Klaver wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> Looking at the PJSUA-LIB and PJSIP sources it seems that adding a >>> Route header is the preferred way of manually specifying and >>> outbound >>> proxy. Since some SIP proxies may not like having a Route header set >>> on a new transaction, I was wondering if there is any other way to >>> specify this, e.g. on a REGISTER. Looking at the source, the only >>> way >>> I can think of doing this implementing my own resolver, but I really >>> don't want to do that... >> >> IMO a config option which allows to omit the Route header of the >> first >> outbound proxy would be useful. >> > > Yeah that will be useful, but we don't support that for now, and > adding this would be quite major since it was not supported by the > original design. > > Ruud, can you explain again exactly what kind of behavior that the > proxy doesn't like about Route header? To be honest I don't have any personal experience with this, but I understand that proxies are generally wary of the Route header, since apparently they can open possibilities for relaying attacks. A relay that does not do a check to see that the SIP URI in the Route header is pointing to itself may simply discard the packet. In any case, I would prefer not to use the Route header and I was just wondering if there was another way. If there isn't then please don't worry about it. :) Ruud Klaver AG Projects
