28 Jun
2007
28 Jun
'07
11:13 a.m.
I would propose to simply apply this patch to modules/rr/loose.c:
@@ -1069,8 +1069,8 @@
return -1;
}
- if (is_myself(&_m->parsed_uri.host, _m->parsed_uri.port_no)
- || _m->parsed_uri.type==TEL_URI_T ||
_m->parsed_uri.type==TELS_URI_T) {
+ if (_m->parsed_uri.type==TEL_URI_T || _m->parsed_uri.type==TELS_URI_T ||
+ is_myself(&_m->parsed_uri.host,
_m->parsed_uri.port_no)) {
DBG("loose_route: RURI is myself (or tel URI)\n");
if ((ret = is_myself(&puri.host, puri.port_no)) == 1 &&
!(enable_double_rr && is_2rr(&puri.params))) {
JF
On 6/22/07, Greger Viken Teigre <greger(a)teigre.com> wrote:
This seems like a corner case where the tel uri with
no domain results in maybe a bit unfortunate return code from loose_route.
Comments anyone?
g-)
------- Original message -------
From: JF <jfkavaka(a)gmail.com>
Cc: serusers(a)iptel.org, openimscore-cscf(a)lists.berlios.de
Sent: 22.6.'07, 11:11
Thanks Greger,
The problem is related to the fact that the Req-URI is a tel-URI.
I had to work around it in the script by not letting loose_route get
called when the URI is a tel URI.
In loose.c, loose_route() says (by looking at the log):
DBG("loose_route: RURI is NOT myself\n");
because Req-URI doesn't have a host part.
Then after_loose(_m, &puri, 1, 0) is called because the single
existing Route header has our SIP URI.
And then:
DBG("after_loose: Topmost route URI: '%.*s' is me\n", uri->len,
ZSW(uri->s));
and
DBG("after_loose: No next URI found\n");
An since _ruri_myself == 0, return RR_DRIVEN;
IMO the fact that the Req-URI is a tel URI shouldn't make loose_route
return true in this case...
JF
On 6/21/07, Greger V. Teigre <greger(a)teigre.com> wrote:
If there's a single Route header pointing to
itself, then this is a good
indication that a UA added a Route to your proxy as an outbound proxy.
If SER correctly identities the uri as itself, it should AFAIK return false.
Could you please turn on debugging and then look for loose_route and
after_loose debug messages in the logs and post them?
g-)
JF wrote:
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
Serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers Hi all,
When SER receives an INVITE with a single Route header pointing to
itself, it's supposed to delete it and process the message as if no
Route header was there in the first place. This is what RFC3261
mandates, right?
But currently the loose_route function returns true to the script in
this case, just like when more Route headers are present.
So I have some routing logic for when no Route headers are present,
and if I want to apply the same routing logic to the case when there
is a single Route header pointing to myself (naturally, as it's the
same as if no Route header was present), I currently have to replicate
the same routing logic inside the if (loose_route())...
Or is there an other way? Do I have to develop my own module function
or use some regexp search from the script to detect if there are more
Routes besides myself before I call loose_route?
The best would be to change loose_route to return false and just
remove the Route header pointing to myself when there are no more
Route headers in the message... what do you think?
JF
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
Serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers