HI Joachim,
you are right - when the NAPTR support will be added, I plan to cumulate
all t_relayxxxx() functions in a single one like:
t_relay("[proto:]host[:port]")
lack of proto or port will trigger NAPTR or SRV lookups.
regards,
bogdan
Joachim Fabini wrote:
Hi,
Initially I intended to submit a feature request for
OpenSER functionality similar to t_relay_to_udp,
t_relay_to_tcp but WITHOUT the need to specify the
destination IP address and port.
My reasoning was to let the new functions do exactly
what t_relay() does but in addition force the DNS SRV
query for a specific transport (udp, tcp, or tls).
Seeing the roadmap for 1.1 I realized that NAPTR solves
part of this problem. Is there already any estimation
when NAPTR implementation will be available in OpenSER?
I intentionally said "part of the problem" because
NAPTR delegates the decision on the transport to the
destination DNS. But: our own proxy might also be
required to control the selected transport.
It seems to me quite flexible to implement a
proxy-hosted NAPTR emulation and specify the list
of requested protocols, e.g.
t_relay_to_transport("tls","tcp",0)
specifies that t_relay should firstly generate a
SRV DNS query for
_sips._tcp.mydomain.org, if this
fails to query for
_sip._tcp.mydomain.org and then
give up - if I don't want UDP.
This saves one DNS query (NAPTR) and enables a proxy
to control what protocols it uses for contacting the
next hop.
Finally, I believe that the interface to t_relay_naptr()
(or whatever the naptr relaying will be called) should
support selection of desired protocols, e.g.
t_relay_to_naptr("tls", "tcp", "udp") where entries
can be left empty to indicate that this transport is
not desired. The argument order might even overrule
the NAPTR response transport ranking - finally we
connect and thus decide on what transport we prefer... ;)
Any comments warmly welcome,
best regards
--Joachim
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
Users(a)openser.org
http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users