1

Generate a registration request from TP-2000 and P-CSCF successfully accept the request and add its own entry in the via header field before forwarding the request to wards the I-CSCF.

P-CSCF should not add any junk field to the via header field

Expected :

Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 
10.193.30.10;branch=z9hG4bK71d3.710ba3847d1301c016f10c7c7b5f8864.0`

Observation: P-CSCF is adding an extra parameter in the via header field

Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 
10.193.30.10;branch=z9hG4bK71d3.710ba3847d1301c016f10c7c7b5f8864.0;i=1
Dileep Kumar
  • 11
  • 1

1 Answers1

0

What is the question here. You have shared a observation.

If your question is validity of the addition - I haven't seen a requirement in IMS / RFC specs that says the PCSCF should not be adding generic [junk??] parameter to Via.

A name-value generic param can be added to the Via and its unto the end points to decide the behavior based on it.

Rajesh
  • 660
  • 4
  • 12
  • In the observation, we can see i=1, sometimes the result is i=5. my doubt is : whether " i " is extra parameter in via header? will it cause any problem? – Dileep Kumar Jul 14 '15 at 05:20
  • Any header param that doesn't interfere with basic ABNF of the Via Param should be ignored - Since its outside the ";" it makes it a Header param and can be ignored by the parser. – Rajesh Jul 14 '15 at 06:11