22 Jul
2015
22 Jul
'15
2:10 p.m.
Hi Federico,
I agree with you re. the specs. I will have a look this evening on our test
setup and commit your patch if I am happy. Thanks for your feedback!
Cheers
Jason
On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 at 12:23 Federico Favaro <notifications(a)github.com>
wrote:
Dear all,
With this mail i would like to explain better my modifications to CDP
module for Rx diameter message routing. (pull request #238
<https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/pull/238>).
As you know, the ims_qos module create AAR Diameter message sent from
P-CSCF to PCRF on REGISTER or on the first response received by the P-CSCF
with a valid SDP during INVITE and STR message on BYE
After the creation of AAR message, the routing decision is made in the cdp
module.
On get_routing_peer function (routing.c file), fist of all,
AVP_Vendor_Specific_Application_Id is checked. If this AVP is present,
AVP_Vendor_Id and AVP_Auth_Application_Id is checked together.
If they are present on the message, vendor_id and app_id are assigned with
the respective values retrieved from the message.
After that, AVP_Auth_Application_Id is checked.
If this AVP is present, AVP_Vendor_Id is checked. If this is not present,
vendord_id is assigned to zero.
The same behavior is implemented for AVP_Acct_Application_Id.
This way, if Auth_Application_Id is present but not AVP_Vendor_Id is not,
vendor_id variable is zero and peer_handles_application function will
return always zero and the module will not be able to route correctly the
request (unless you by-pass the routing forcing explicitely the peer on the
script).
Taking a look to the specs (TS 29.214) AVP_Auth_Application_id is
mandatory, meanwhile AVP_Vendor_Id and AVP_Acct_Application_Id is not
present. For this reason, IMHO vendor_id variable cannot be forced to zero
if one of them is not present.
In my patch, vendor_id variable is updated if only both AVP are present
(Auth_Application_Id and Vendor_Id or
AVP_Acct_Application_Id and Vendor_Id).
In my tests, everything is working with my patch and also the other
Diameter messages (e.g. from I-CSCF or S-CSCF to HSS and vice-versa).
However, i would like to have your point of view on the matter.
Best regards,
Federico Favaro
R&D Department
Athonet s.r.l.
—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
<https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/pull/238#issuecomment-123653011>.
_______________________________________________
sr-dev mailing list
sr-dev(a)lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev