3 Sep
2014
3 Sep
'14
3:09 a.m.
Thank you so much for your informative response.
Yes the "peer" may be correct term in this sense as i am trying to identify
"devices" (SIP UAs or Proxy) that are directly connected to Kamailio via
SIP signalling (i.e. there is no other intermediate SIP device [SIP UA or
Proxy] in the middle). That is why top most VIA header looks interesting as
it has peer network address that can be used to identify that peer uniquely
for both incoming and outgoing SIP requests and responses.
However, this works perfectly fine ONLY for TCP, TLS and UDP transports.
For WS and WSS, there is no network address, just some random string, which
is not guaranteed to be unique in peer context.
Anyways for the moment the only workaround i see fit for the situation is
to modify WS client code such that i generates this random string uniquely
(e.g. something like GUID used by Windows OS or UUID generated by libuuid
in Linux).
Any other suggestions are warmly welcome.
Thank you.
On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 4:22 PM, Klaus Darilion <klaus.mailinglists(a)pernau.at
wrote:
Not sure what you trying to do, but the Via header is
for transactions.
It may be different for every transaction. Thus, if you need transaction
matching (requests to responses) then you are fine and should use purely
the branch id.
If you want to match messages from one transaction to messages from
another transaction (e.g. dialog matching or matching multiple dialogs
from the same user) then the Via is probably the wrong choice. Please
also note, that the user can put any data into the Via header and this
may confuse your application if you blindly trusts all the data in the
Via header.
For matching dialogs you should use call-id and tags (or use the dialog
module).
For matching requests from a certain user agent: I think there is no
reliable way - GRUU may work if available.
But as you are talking about encryption it is more "peer" related then
user-agent related. I say "peer" as the peer may be another proxy with
several user agents behind. To identify peers you should use the data
from the transport: IP, port, protocol. That should be unique for a
peer. For received messages it should be simple to extract them, for
sending, the data should be available too (e.g. in DURI or some
references to a TCP connection).
regards
Klaus
On 22.08.2014 02:26, Muhammad Shahzad wrote:
Sorry for putting this question on both dev and
user mailing lists, as
it is a rather theoretical question and i hope some SIP guru on either
mail list will answer.
For non-WS endpoints which use TCP or UDP for SIP transport, each
upstream request has top most VIA header pointing to the previous hop
which forwarded the request to current hop while each downstream request
has top most VIA header pointing to next hop to which it will be
forwarded from current hop.
But for WS endpoints, the top most VIA has dummy static value, so there
is no way to identify who sent this request or to whom the reply is
going to.
Please note that i am not specifically interested in network address of
remote endpoint (though VIA header is suppose to provide it), i only
need to match requests and responses from / to a specific device using
SIP v2.0 standard.
Any help is highly appreciated.
Thank you.
_______________________________________________
sr-dev mailing list
sr-dev(a)lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev
_______________________________________________
SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list
sr-users(a)lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users