Re: [sipcore] Does a forking proxy send 481?

"Worley, Dale R (Dale)" <dworley@avaya.com> Mon, 03 January 2011 17:53 UTC

Return-Path: <dworley@avaya.com>
X-Original-To: sipcore@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sipcore@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2F133A69F6 for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Jan 2011 09:53:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.509
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.509 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.090, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 T+BDDj7+NWSz for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Jan 2011 09:53:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from p-us1-iereast-outbound-tmp.us1.avaya.com (nj300815-nj-outbound.net.avaya.com [135.11.29.16]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9F423A69F3 for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Jan 2011 09:53:24 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAAacIU3GmAcF/2dsb2JhbACkNHOlJAKWVIVKBIRliVY
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.60,267,1291611600"; d="scan'208";a="52655427"
Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by p-us1-iereast-outbound-tmp.us1.avaya.com with ESMTP; 03 Jan 2011 12:55:30 -0500
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.60,267,1291611600"; d="scan'208";a="565676456"
Received: from dc-us1hcex2.us1.avaya.com (HELO DC-US1HCEX2.global.avaya.com) ([135.11.52.21]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 03 Jan 2011 12:55:30 -0500
Received: from DC-US1MBEX4.global.avaya.com ([169.254.1.90]) by DC-US1HCEX2.global.avaya.com ([::1]) with mapi; Mon, 3 Jan 2011 12:55:29 -0500
From: "Worley, Dale R (Dale)" <dworley@avaya.com>
To: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>, "sipcore@ietf.org" <sipcore@ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2011 12:53:47 -0500
Thread-Topic: Does a forking proxy send 481?
Thread-Index: AQHLoicB3RtUyQIKOk6iYgKUeLVlz5O/mgky
Message-ID: <CD5674C3CD99574EBA7432465FC13C1B2202288B34@DC-US1MBEX4.global.avaya.com>
References: <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A05850482F0C3@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se>
In-Reply-To: <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A05850482F0C3@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [sipcore] Does a forking proxy send 481?
X-BeenThere: sipcore@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIP Core Working Group <sipcore.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore>, <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sipcore>
List-Post: <mailto:sipcore@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore>, <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2011 17:53:25 -0000

________________________________________
From: sipcore-bounces@ietf.org [sipcore-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Christer Holmberg [christer.holmberg@ericsson.com]

Question: Does the forking proxy send a 481 response to the request, or does it forward it towards the remote UAS previously associated with ED1?

The reason I ask is because of a question whether there should always be a 2xx response to a PRACK, even if the associated dialog has been terminated. But, a proxy that does not know PRACK would of course send a 481.
_______________________________________________

It appears that the forking proxy has the option of sending 481 in response to a request directed to a dialog that it knows has terminated.  It seems that PRACK is an exception to this, but as you note, the proxy may not understand PRACK.  The safest implementation is that the UA should be prepared to receive a 481 response to the PRACK.

Dale