30 Sep
2005
30 Sep
'05
9:49 a.m.
I still think this a problem of the caller's client.
As long as there is no transport=tcp parameter in the Contact: header of
the INVITE ser will use UDP (as the standard says). The transport
parameter in record route defines how to reach the hop targeted in the
route header, not the next one.
Thus, the callee will send the BYE request to ser using UDP. Ser will
remove its own route headers. Then, ser will route acording the request
URI in the BYE message (which is the contact URI from the INVITE) and
will use the transport of the request URI.
klaus
Mark Aiken wrote:
HI,
The original RURI does have but when SER relays to UDP UA it places
transport=tcp in the Record-Route but not in the RURI to the UDP UA,
which seems correct to me.
I guess the problem is when using relay_to_udp on an INVITE from a TCP
UA, to force SER to act as a TCP to UDP proxy, SER cant handle loose
routing new requests in the same dialog back via TCP.
There seems to be no code in SER to handle this, from the small bits
I've looked at anyway. The information is in the rr params that SER
added, but SER just ignores the information on loose routed requests
when the route is a local one.
Does anyone know if there is some special trick to get SER to handle
TCP<->UDP conversion of loose routed requests? Should the UA be adding
the transport=tcp from the rr param to the RURI of the BYE ( I would not
think so, since its the 2nd route added by SER anyway, not the topmost).
For SER to work as a TCP<=>UDP proxy, one needs to "search" for the
transport=tcp, somehow be sure its in a local route header, and add the
transport=tcp to the uri before calling t_relay, I guess. I haven't
tried that yet. All this for loose routed requests.
This seems like a lot of work in the .cfg file which is better done in
rr/tm module.
I still think I must be doing something wrong as SER should handle this
automatically for loose routed requests.
Is using relay_to_udp not the proper way to force TCP to UDP proxy of an
INVITE?
Mark
On 9/29/05, *Klaus Darilion* <klaus.mailinglists(a)pernau.at
<mailto:klaus.mailinglists@pernau.at>> wrote:
Hi Mark!
I do not know it exactly, but I think the important thing is the contact
header URI of the INVITE. Does it contain a transport=tcp parameter?
Otherwise, ser is correct when using UDP.
klaus
Mark Aiken wrote:
Hi,
I'm having problems getting SER to (loose) route requests from UDP to
TCP. I'm not sure if the UA is at fault here or some SER config
issue.
SER receives an INVITE over TCP, record_route() is called and
then the
request is relayed via UDP (t_relay_to_udp) to
the UA. The
INVITE relayed to the UDP UA now has 2 Record-Route headers added by
SER. One has the transport=tcp parameter.
Record-Route: <sip: xx.xx.xx.xx;r2=on;ftag=xyz;lr=on>
Record-Route: <sip:xx.xx.xx.xx;transport=tcp;r2=on;ftag=xyz>
When the UA sends the BYE to SER, it has the 2 Route headers like
so (on
a single line):
Route:
<sip:xx.xx.xx.xx;r2=on;ftag=xyz;lr=on>,<sip:xx.xx.xx.xx;transport=tcp;r2=on;ftag=xyz;lr=on>
The SER script simply calls t_relay() in the loose_route section
of the
script.
I expected t_relay() to relay the BYE via TCP, since the Route header
has transport=tcp, but it sends the BYE via UDP instead.
Anyone seen this problem before? Do I need to check for
transport=tcp
and call t_relay_to_tcp, rather than using
t_relay after
loose_route()?
Mark
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org <mailto:serusers@lists.iptel.org>
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers