8 Jul
2007
8 Jul
'07
5:55 p.m.
Your mixing up route with the request uri. The Route
headers that SER
receive will be processed appropriately through the loose route
handling. Adding your own is only for downstream processing. Thus, add
an extra Route header for your SER and either rewrite the request uri to
the next proxy or use t_forward* commands.
g-)
And that is what I want to achive. In some particular scenarios I want to
include an extra SIP proxy node in the path. But I want to make sure that the massage
received by SER will be forwarded in the unchanged form to the extra node so that the
initial recipient will be know to the extra node (like in IMS when AS acts as SIP Proxy).
So I was wondering if make sense to add this extra Route headers in the SER logic, make
loose_route() check again so it will influence the signaling path by adding an extra node.
Tomasz
tzieleniewski wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have the following SIP scenario:
>
> UA_A -> SER_A -> other SIP Proxy -> SER_A -> UA_B
>
> I want to force SER_A instance to forward the received request to other SIP proxy
element and ensure that that request will return to SER_A afterwards.
> To do that I use an insert_hf() function from textops module inside ser.cfg to
insert a double Route header field - first value the sip uri of the 'other SIP
proxy' and second one the SER_A sip uri to assure that the forwarded request will
return to SER_A.
>
> Whenever request enters the ser.cfg script logic my SER code performs the
loose_route() check in general. In my situation when request initialy enters the logic it
doesn't have any Route headers. When request enters a particular route block
responsible for handling this request there is an lookup_user() invocation to check if the
user should be serviced by this SER. If lookup_user() returns true and this particular
user has a flag set which indicates routing through the extra SIP proxy I add the Route
headers and pass the request to the 'FORWARD' route block where I do the
t_relay().
> My problem is that when I do t_relay() after inserting the Route headers into the
request it is not forwarded according to the topmost Route header field value??
>
> Is it bug in ser??
> Please point me what do I missed.
> Thank you in advance.
> Tomasz
>
> _______________________________________________
> Serusers mailing list
> Serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
> http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
>
>
>