11 Jul
2007
11 Jul
'07
11:43 a.m.
On Wednesday 11 July 2007 17:35:39 JF wrote:
Answer to 1st question: Yes.
Ok
Answer to 2nd question: if the call is routed to a SIP
phone, the
Req-URI is rewritten with an appropriate SIP URI (not necessarily
sip:number_in_tel_uri@mydomain). If it goes to a PSTN gw, it is kept
unchanged as a tel URI.
Ok, but for further in-dialog routing of the message between your AS and the
GW the Contact's of the AS and the GW are important. As long none of these
two uses a TEL URI Contact (which would be IMHO totally stupid), it does not
matter if the TEL URI is not re-written on the way to the GW.
Nils
JF
On 7/11/07, Nils Ohlmeier <nils(a)iptel.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wednesday 11 July 2007 17:07:22 JF wrote:
> > The scenario was actually using an Application Server.
> > The AS starts a call and sends an INVITE with tel URI to a SER which
> > is the entrypoint to my SIP infrastructure. The AS uses this SER as
> > outbound proxy, so it includes its SIP URI in a Route header.
> >
> > The use-case for tel URI in the Req-URI here is that it will be the
> > task of my SIP infrastructure to determine if this tel URI is
> > associated to a SIP phone, or if it should be forwarded to a PSTN gw.
>
> But your AS uses a SIP URI as Contact in the INVITE?
> And when the call is established either to a phone or the GW there will
> be no TEL URI any more in the dialog, right?
>
> If you can answer both questions from above with yes, I would propose to
> add another check for the To-tag before we deviced if this is loose route
> driven or not. That should then hopefully solve your problem in a generic
> way without caring about the URI scheme.
>
> Nils
>
> > JF
> >
> > On 7/11/07, Nils Ohlmeier <nils(a)iptel.org> wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > I think the TEL URI was invented to make the live easier for PSTN
> > > gateways. So they should only be used between proxy's and gateways
> > > (or vice versa). This also means that a TEL URI should not be used
> > > routing between SIP proxies. IMHO basically the first fully SIP aware
> > > hop should turn the TEL URI into a SIP URI. That makes life of
> > > everybody easier.
> > >
> > > So I think that treating a TEL URI as a local URI (as if it would
> > > have one of the local domains) is not the correct solution.
> > >
> > > To understand the scenario a little bit better: in this an in-dialog
> > > request with a To-tag (then I'm wondering how this can happen), or is
> > > this an initial request without a To-tag (the devices uses your proxy
> > > as outbound proxy)?
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > Nils
> > >
> > > On Thursday 28 June 2007 17:13:43 JF wrote:
> > > > 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-)