1 Aug
2011
1 Aug
'11
5:57 p.m.
Hello,
while trying to upgrade from 1.5 to 3.1 i noticed that between t_relay() and
branch_route, $du gets automatically set to $ru if it has not been set before.
This is a change from 1.5 i could not find documentation for, so it might have
been unintened.
Can someone enlighten me on the purpose of this change and if there is a way
to determine if $du is (was) unset other than comparing $ru to $du, wich seems
a bit inefficient?
Is it even guaranteed that $du gets set to $ru in every possible scenario?
--
Alex Hermann
1 Aug
1 Aug
5:58 p.m.
On 08/01/2011 11:57 AM, Alex Hermann wrote:
Is it even guaranteed that $du gets set to $ru in
every possible
scenario?
No, it is set only in a few cases.
Good way to check:
if(!defined $du)
--
Alex Balashov - Principal
Evariste Systems LLC
260 Peachtree Street NW
Suite 2200
Atlanta, GA 30303
Tel: +1-678-954-0670
Fax: +1-404-961-1892
Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/
7:20 p.m.
On Monday 01 August 2011 17:58:17 Alex Balashov wrote:
On 08/01/2011 11:57 AM, Alex Hermann wrote:
That does not work:
The following script fragment:
request_route:
xlog("Relay: <$ru> via <$du>");
if (defined $du) {
xlog("Relay: $$du is defined");
}
branch_route:
xlog("Branch: <$ru> via <$du>");
if (defined $du) {
xlog("Branch: $$du is defined");
}
Produces the following log fragment:
Relay: <sip:user@domain:8888;transport=udp> via <<null>>
Branch: <sip:user@domain:8888;transport=udp> via
<sip:user@domain:8888;transport=udp>
Branch: $du is defined
Let me rephrase the question as it may have been a bit unclear: How can i
determine within branch_route if the current branch had $du set?
--
Alex Hermann
Is it even guaranteed that $du gets set to $ru in
every possible
scenario?
No, it is set only in a few cases.
Good way to check:
if(!defined $du) 
7 p.m.
Hello,
On 8/1/11 5:57 PM, Alex Hermann wrote:
Hello,
while trying to upgrade from 1.5 to 3.1 i noticed that between t_relay() and
branch_route, $du gets automatically set to $ru if it has not been set before.
have you spotted the code that does it? It should not happen like that,
I see no reason for it, but it would be good to review it. Pointing in
the sources will save some time of blind search here.
Cheers,
Daniel
This is a change from 1.5 i could not find documentation for, so it might have
been unintened.
Can someone enlighten me on the purpose of this change and if there is a way
to determine if $du is (was) unset other than comparing $ru to $du, wich seems
a bit inefficient?
Is it even guaranteed that $du gets set to $ru in every possible scenario?
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- http://www.asipto.com
Kamailio Advanced Training, Oct 10-13, Berlin: http://asipto.com/u/kat
http://linkedin.com/in/miconda -- http://twitter.com/miconda
7:23 p.m.
On Monday 01 August 2011 19:00:36 Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
I think it is in t_fwd.c : prepare_new_uac() around line 294
--
Alex Hermann
while trying
to upgrade from 1.5 to 3.1 i noticed that between t_relay()
and branch_route, $du gets automatically set to $ru if it has not been
set before.
have you spotted the code that does it? It should not happen like that,
I see no reason for it, but it would be good to review it. Pointing in
the sources will save some time of blind search here.
2 Aug
2 Aug
10:37 a.m.
On 8/1/11 7:23 PM, Alex Hermann wrote:
On Monday 01 August 2011 19:00:36 Daniel-Constantin
Mierla wrote:
I think it is in t_fwd.c :
prepare_new_uac() around line 294
thanks, indeed seems to be the case of setting $du
to next hop, which is
$ru if $du was not set before. I will prepare a patch and maybe you can
help testing it.
Cheers,
Daniel
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- http://www.asipto.com
Kamailio Advanced Training, Oct 10-13, Berlin: http://asipto.com/u/kat
http://linkedin.com/in/miconda -- http://twitter.com/miconda
while
trying to upgrade from 1.5 to 3.1 i noticed that between t_relay()
and branch_route, $du gets automatically set to $ru if it has not been
set before.
have you spotted the code that does it? It should not happen like
that,
I see no reason for it, but it would be good to review it. Pointing in
the sources will save some time of blind search here.
4 Aug
4 Aug
12:01 p.m.
Hello,
I committed a patch to master branch in order to skip setting the
dst_uri to next hop address for branch route, link to commit:
http://git.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi/sip-router/?a=commit;h=fb4ecbf…
It would be great if you can give it a try and let me know if all is ok.
Then it will be safe to backport to 3.1.
Thanks,
Daniel
On 8/2/11 10:37 AM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
On 8/1/11 7:23 PM, Alex Hermann wrote:
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- http://www.asipto.com
Kamailio Advanced Training, Oct 10-13, Berlin: http://asipto.com/u/kat
http://linkedin.com/in/miconda -- http://twitter.com/miconda
On Monday 01 August 2011 19:00:36
Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
I think it is in t_fwd.c :
prepare_new_uac() around line 294
thanks, indeed seems to be the case of setting
$du to next hop, which
is $ru if $du was not set before. I will prepare a patch and maybe you
can help testing it.
Cheers,
Daniel
while
trying to upgrade from 1.5 to 3.1 i noticed that between
t_relay()
and branch_route, $du gets automatically set to $ru if it has not been
set before.
have you spotted the code that does it? It should not happen like
that,
I see no reason for it, but it would be good to review it. Pointing in
the sources will save some time of blind search here.
5 Aug
5 Aug
5:17 p.m.
On Thursday 04 August 2011, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
I committed a patch to master branch in order to skip
setting the
dst_uri to next hop address for branch route, link to commit:
http://git.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi/sip-router/?a=commit;h=fb4ecbf
986f4af366e5be9cbad26ceba924c77fd
It would be great if you can give it a try and let me know if all is ok.
Then it will be safe to backport to 3.1.
I tested an empty $du and a filled in $du and both arrive as expected in
branch_route. I did not test any further.
--
Greetings,
Alex Hermann
5:40 p.m.
On 8/5/11 5:17 PM, Alex Hermann wrote:
On Thursday 04 August 2011, Daniel-Constantin Mierla
wrote:
Thanks, I will backport in the near future.
Cheers,
Daniel
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- http://www.asipto.com
Kamailio Advanced Training, Oct 10-13, Berlin: http://asipto.com/u/kat
http://linkedin.com/in/miconda -- http://twitter.com/miconda
I committed a patch to master branch in order to
skip setting the
dst_uri to next hop address for branch route, link to commit:
http://git.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi/sip-router/?a=commit;h=fb4ecbf
986f4af366e5be9cbad26ceba924c77fd
It would be great if you can give it a try and let me know if all is ok.
Then it will be safe to backport to 3.1.
I tested an empty $du and a filled in $du
and both arrive as expected in
branch_route. I did not test any further.
4671
days inactive
4675
days old
8 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Alex Balashov -
Alex Hermann -
Daniel-Constantin Mierla