[Sip] Request URI and TO heasder "user" part is different

Nitin Kapoor <nitinkapoorr@gmail.com> Thu, 18 March 2010 14:41 UTC

Return-Path: <nitinkapoorr@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: sip@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sip@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D5863A6C13 for <sip@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Mar 2010 07:41:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.237
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.237 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.828, BAYES_20=-0.74, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_37=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_62=0.6]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id achfbwKXwAv0 for <sip@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Mar 2010 07:41:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pw0-f44.google.com (mail-pw0-f44.google.com [209.85.160.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D96A3A6C19 for <sip@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Mar 2010 07:41:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pwi10 with SMTP id 10so340205pwi.31 for <sip@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Mar 2010 07:41:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:date:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; bh=vEZO2GDuP694lkhwJpUdpr7reOoSI6vLZ3Ky59CdEvo=; b=FuSS9b1Jp4XkYSmlZAXKKbzAM3YlE7JbGM3bysmwJoUUUKVhue4kF9dZsinBAPt2yR Xh52j8DttwAbiHLVUIA+mSINa45Er9m2P6t1jSE7WaznBY7kERnKf2A9Pmp1tk4wpBHz yN5DVw/oLh0WVGlJo6uIUtCQ4lEi4Ugjb6n/o=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=tWTrDAEjCSMnyE8Fw662j3zjYrP9ACYV39Ul7zJshhbFBCpfDObgEiEDT2YvAoT5+l 9eyKILGhc9bD9V7bU+/aVv/hzoHbGsQ0Ifa7xA2YCUYDC8H6VNSCaoiZkHqRpKRZSggL Cy6Hg/GH8/JbsvoQRMreIk2jEQBmUlxzzbIRc=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.142.210.17 with SMTP id i17mr1330277wfg.146.1268923293727; Thu, 18 Mar 2010 07:41:33 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 10:41:33 -0400
Message-ID: <c80c92d1003180741s31691d6cg7d7f41ebe8bd2c6f@mail.gmail.com>
From: Nitin Kapoor <nitinkapoorr@gmail.com>
To: sip@ietf.org, sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0cd32ed62b80ea0482143a03
Subject: [Sip] Request URI and TO heasder "user" part is different
X-BeenThere: sip@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Session Initiation Protocol <sip.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip>, <mailto:sip-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sip>
List-Post: <mailto:sip@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sip-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip>, <mailto:sip-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 14:41:31 -0000

Hello,

I have the scenario  where the call is coming to SBC from my source UA and
then I am forwarding the same call to redirect server to route the call.

Here is the scenario.

1) Call come to my source UA and then I forwarded the call to redirect
server with below REQUEST uri.

Request-Line: INVITE
sip:17139229867@208.70.157.43<sip%3A17139229867@208.70.157.43>;user=phone
SIP/2.0
Request-URI: sip:17139229867@208.70.157.43 <sip%3A17139229867@208.70.157.43>
;user=phone
To: sip:17139229867@208.70.157.43 <sip%3A17139229867@208.70.157.43>
;user=phone
From: "Joe Gonzales"
<sip:2816524888@64.124.207.220<sip%3A2816524888@64.124.207.220>
;user=phone>;tag=3477742912-272141
Contact: <sip:2816524888@64.124.207.220:5060;user=phone;tgrp=100054CUST>

2) Now from here my *redirect server* replied me with below  uri in TO &
FROM, but will multiple CONTACT header and on which I have the first CONTACT
user part is with “1” and the others all are same but carry the “1” with
rest of the user part.

IP/2.0 300 Redirect
To: <sip:17139229867@208.70.157.43 <sip%3A17139229867@208.70.157.43>
;user=phone>;tag=a667a4b9fa6bfa35b
From: "Joe Gonzales"
<sip:2816524888@64.124.207.220<sip%3A2816524888@64.124.207.220>
;user=phone>;tag=3477742912-272141
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 64.124.207.220:5060
;branch=z9hG4bKb96ce5413fe01d59101005f4ae3881c6
Contact: <sip:7139229867@64.124.207.220 <sip%3A7139229867@64.124.207.220>
;dtg=202583VEND>,
sip:17139229867@64.124.207.220 <sip%3A17139229867@64.124.207.220>
;dtg=202393VEND>,
sip:17139229867@64.124.207.220 <sip%3A17139229867@64.124.207.220>
;dtg=202562VEND>,
sip:17139229867@64.124.207.220 <sip%3A17139229867@64.124.207.220>
;dtg=202405VEND>,
sip:17139229867@64.124.207.220 <sip%3A17139229867@64.124.207.220>
;dtg=202163VEND>,
sip:17139229867@64.124.207.220 <sip%3A17139229867@64.124.207.220>
;dtg=202203VEND>,
sip:17139229867@64.124.207.220 <sip%3A17139229867@64.124.207.220>
;dtg=202525VEND>,
sip:17139229867@64.124.207.220 <sip%3A17139229867@64.124.207.220>
;dtg=201030VEND>,
sip:17139229867@64.124.207.220 <sip%3A17139229867@64.124.207.220>
;dtg=202330VEND>,
sip:17139229867@64.124.207.220 <sip%3A17139229867@64.124.207.220>
;dtg=202206VEND>,
sip:17139229867@64.124.207.220 <sip%3A17139229867@64.124.207.220>
;dtg=202329VEND>,
sip:17139229867@64.124.207.220 <sip%3A17139229867@64.124.207.220>
;dtg=201906VEND>,
sip:17139229867@64.124.207.220 <sip%3A17139229867@64.124.207.220>
;dtg=201908VEND>,
sip:17139229867@64.124.207.220 <sip%3A17139229867@64.124.207.220>
;dtg=201907VEND>,
sip:17139229867@64.124.207.220 <sip%3A17139229867@64.124.207.220>
;dtg=201905VEND>

3)However after sending the ACK my server again sent the another invite to
my vendor with below REQUEST URI with “1” whereas in first CONTACT header
from redirect was not carrying the “1” Contact:
sip:7139229867@64.124.207.220 <sip%3A7139229867@64.124.207.220>
;dtg=202583VEND.

Request-Line: INVITE
sip:17139229867@64.245.120.88<sip%3A17139229867@64.245.120.88>SIP/2.0
Request-URI: sip:17139229867@64.245.120.88 <sip%3A17139229867@64.245.120.88>

Whereby in TO header(of the same INVITE) I do not have the “1” in user part
as below.

To: sip:7139229867@64.245.120.88 <sip%3A7139229867@64.245.120.88>
Contact: sip:64.124.207.220:5060;tgrp=100054CUST

And because of this my vendor is sending immediate 502 REJECTED.

Status-Line: SIP/2.0 502 Rejected - Called number is not NATNUM

Could anyone please help me on this, whether it is a correct or not,because
as far as I know he user part of the Request uri would be checked first.
User part of the Request uri is valid but the To header is different from
Request uri  so now a validation for the User part of the To header will be
performed and if the user part is found to be invalid then a  404 (Not
Found) response should  sent back.

Thanks,
Nitin Kapoor