13 Feb
2007
13 Feb
'07
8:13 a.m.
Thank You:) It help!
But actually I had it done with the usage of
lookup_user("$t.uid","@ruri").
does it make any difference from lookup_user("$tu.uid","@ruri") when I
use $t.uid instead of $tu.uid? this is putting this avp to general class with the To track
isn't it??
when I changed to lookup_user("Request-uri") it worked so generally works:) but
not for lookup_user("$t.uid","@ruri").
is there some order and priority in which the lookup_contacts() searches for uid?? (for
instance first in user class and then I global??)
tomasz
The difference is that there is the forwarded request
visible...
#
U 2007/02/12 20:35:16.241648 192.168.1.2:5060 -> 192.168.1.2:5060
INVITE sip:hellboy@tezet.no-ip.org SIP/2.0.
Record-Route: <sip:192.168.1.2;ftag=1173592111;lr=on>.
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.1.2;branch=z9hG4bKb946.ee8b4793.0.
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
192.168.1.2:7061;rport=7061;branch=z9hG4bK7AF94D00BA07C6380C5EC3434F4EB592.
From: tomix <sip:tomix@tezet.no-ip.org:7061>;tag=1173592111.
To: <sip:tomix@tezet.no-ip.org>.
Contact: <sip:tomix@192.168.1.2:7061>.
Call-ID: 0E6FCCFF-D661-0186-3392-977A4BBCDE86(a)192.168.1.2.
CSeq: 23808 INVITE.
Proxy-Authorization: Digest
username="tomix",realm="tezet.no-ip.org",nonce="45d0c2a0f928f22d790a5dfa17228b193d454c7e",response="0df094e8ea2808fa71d2fa28ccdfa8a4",uri="sip:tomix@tezet.no-ip.org",qop=auth,cnonce="67344073698582511BAA60061EBDA625",nc=00000001.
Max-Forwards: 16.
Content-Type: application/sdp.
User-Agent: X-Lite release 1105d.
Content-Length: 308.
If I understand it correctly you get this request being forwarded to the
contacs of tomix(a)tezet.no-ip.org and not hellboy@.... using usrloc
lookup (P-hint in the next INVITE).
Then you must have set the TO / USER avp name "uid" based on the To
header instead of request-uri. Check the lookup_user function calls, it
should be
for REGISTER
lookup_user("To") or lookup_user("$tu.uid","(a)to.uri")
and for other requests
lookup_user("Request-uri") or
lookup_user("$tu.uid","@ruri")
If you want to do some originating services, you can use
lookup_user("From") or lookup_user("$fu.uid", "(a)from.uri")
Michal
On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 20:41 +0100, tzieleniewski wrote:
> Ok I did it.
> There is no difference.
> Just to make sure I attached the file.
>
> Because I left work I repeated the situation at home. I call to "myself"
tomix(a)tezet.no-ip.org and I try to forward to hellboy(a)tezet.no-ip.org which is not
registered.
>
> I can also send my ser.cfg if it might help.
>
> tomasz
>
> > I see. Please capture the network on linux cooked interface "any",
so
> > even the request sent over loopback will be visible.
> >
> > Michal
> >
> > On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 16:53 +0100, tzieleniewski wrote:
> > > Yes but this ruri sip:hellboy@192.168.0.116:5060 is set after the
invocation of lookup_contacts(). the function is invoked on the message which contains
ruri changed by the forward_blind parameter.
> > > There is first "round" when processing of the first INVITE
reaches the checking of the forward_blind parameter after which I invoke the attr2uri and
just after this make the t_relay. then there is second "round" with the changed
ruri. before lookup_contacts I see the ruri as mm(a)voip.touk.pl and after
sip:hellboy@192.168.0.116:5060 which is in fact the location corresponding to
sip:hellboy@voip.touk.pl.
> > > there is no message sending through the network but the message with the
new ruri is processed which is visible in the log file I see it logged with the changed
ruri??
> > >
> > > So where is the problem??
> > > Is it the problem of attr2uri?
> > > I tried it by using rewriteuri() and it gave me the same result. changed
ruri but lookup_contacts() returns value corresponding to the first ruri. Maybe
> > > lookup_contacts() checks not the ruri??
> > >
> > >
> > > > Yes, your request-uri is sip:hellboy@192.168.0.116:5060 which I
think
> > > > will not be looked up in location (lookup_contact should fail), so
it
> > > > does not rewrite the request-uri at all.
> > > >
> > > > Michal
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 16:05 +0100, tzieleniewski wrote:
> > > > > hmm
> > > > > it is strange because I can see that after attr2uri and
t_relay() message again enters the main route block and goes through the whole processing
but I can't see the message being send through the network. the recourd_route and via
headers are being attached which is visible in the message send to unwanted (contained in
the first invite - in this case myself because I try this by calling my self and setting
forward_blind to another sip uri) destination:
> > > > >
> > > > > U 2007/02/12 16:05:12.199566 192.168.0.74:506