[Sip] Clarification with respect to "To" and "From" headers

Abhishek Gupta <gupta.kumar.abhishek@gmail.com> Mon, 30 May 2011 15:46 UTC

Return-Path: <gupta.kumar.abhishek@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: sip@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sip@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6A69E07F8 for <sip@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 May 2011 08:46:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1bJomQppMIsi for <sip@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 May 2011 08:46:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-bw0-f44.google.com (mail-bw0-f44.google.com [209.85.214.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97F35E07F7 for <sip@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 May 2011 08:46:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by bwz13 with SMTP id 13so3435951bwz.31 for <sip@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 May 2011 08:46:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=cLkUmN9e9UIjxgQKTDvaFOh/2B+EAa4SwNd2o7iveNE=; b=GCT+eGhAT7o7WlRepMsnQIrUqdSIuYv3SsE/Rd8CU/zqzYKmZCsUkaD3zagrUd0UYs U/NIHTZpeF/yZyjFxV6Vdelze4F3Fr3KTxR+B2AMshh3Qd8XhL13g0wMf6mqTtomg76t COSCq5BTRw7O4AuTIQMBeSYhu944cilOViIJY=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=vUVnzVILGODp/g6z3Jw6th62mj+D5f0J7Ch6xCzJb2CNlpOW9PnNlLmXOCc3KL5Q7X vjTsAM2am5cfKr5NimQ9m5GlG96I5Ib6nW+P62qqEMz+GRBK3Bc5FUG7O4jzDUHVwNn0 vmyZVfHPgSIM5BAHtm5f1aFDn6XnOyyAKqK/M=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.204.80.223 with SMTP id u31mr4608884bkk.121.1306770398241; Mon, 30 May 2011 08:46:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.204.122.73 with HTTP; Mon, 30 May 2011 08:46:38 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 21:16:38 +0530
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=6bU8p5gbHpTe7efhqAdSf_Ci+4g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Abhishek Gupta <gupta.kumar.abhishek@gmail.com>
To: discussion@sipforum.org, sip@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0016e6db7bcb63e43d04a48031e6"
Subject: [Sip] Clarification with respect to "To" and "From" headers
X-BeenThere: sip@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Session Initiation Protocol <sip.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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: Mon, 30 May 2011 15:46:41 -0000

Hi Forum,


I have a simple scenario as mentioned below -


EP1-------------------->SBC-------------------->EP2


As we all know that an SBC is a B2BUA device and its main function is
Topology Hiding that is achieved through header manipulation.

Now, for EP1, SBC acts as a UAS and for EP2 it acts as a UAC.

I have configured two endpoints EP1 with IP1 and EP2 with IP2 that access
the SBC through AP1 and AP2 respectively (Pls read AP as Access Point).  An
Access Point is nothing but an IP through which EP1 and EP2 communicate.

Say, EP1 sends INVITE to SBC containing as follows -


INVITE sip:5555@AP1 SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP IP1;branch=z9hG4bK776asdhds
Max-Forwards: 70
To: <sip:5555@AP1>
From: <sip:1111@IP1>;tag=1928301774
Call-ID: a84b4c76e66710@IP1
CSeq: 1 INVITE
Contact: <sip:1111@IP1>
Content-Type: application/sdp

(SDP not shown)


Upon receiving INVITE, SBC forms a request and forwards to the EP2 as
follows -

INVITE sip:5555@IP2 SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP AP2;branch=z9hG4bKhoiasdb
Max-Forwards: 69
To: <sip:5555@AP2>
From: <sip:1111@AP2>;tag=98765479
Call-ID: ufs8doi8afjnfd67asdfhu
CSeq: 1 INVITE
Contact: <sip:1111@AP2>
Content-Type: application/sdp

(SDP not shown)



Although the call was successful after responses from EP2, I would kindly
like to know from your side how correct is "To" and "From" header values
with respect to leg2 as highlighted ??  Though there is no impact due of
this behavior.

If it is correct, no issues !
If it is incorrect what should be the correct behavior ?



Thanks & Regards,

Abhishek Kumar Gupta