Klaus Darilion wrote:
So do you perform lookup() also for in_dialog requests?
When necessary.
Otherwise, A endpoint just provides the URI of the Z-end of the signaling path for the domain and I make special exceptions to relay that as long as I have the Call-ID stored somewhere, which I do.
I guess as long as all the clients are loose_routers (final target in the RURI) it will work even without loose_route, if you only have 1 proxy between the clients.
Of course the forwarded in-dialgo requests will still have an Route header which is actually not RFC conform but ignored by allmost all SIP clients.
I would say: dirty but it works in closed setups (no public Internet telephony)
klaus
Alex Balashov schrieb:
Klaus Darilion wrote:
So do you perform lookup() also for in_dialog requests?
When necessary.
Otherwise, A endpoint just provides the URI of the Z-end of the signaling path for the domain and I make special exceptions to relay that as long as I have the Call-ID stored somewhere, which I do.
Klaus Darilion wrote:
I guess as long as all the clients are loose_routers (final target in the RURI) it will work even without loose_route, if you only have 1 proxy between the clients.
Of course the forwarded in-dialgo requests will still have an Route header which is actually not RFC conform but ignored by allmost all SIP clients.
So, you're saying it's better to run loose_route() to have it consume this extraneous Route: header?
Alex Balashov schrieb:
Klaus Darilion wrote:
I guess as long as all the clients are loose_routers (final target in the RURI) it will work even without loose_route, if you only have 1 proxy between the clients.
Of course the forwarded in-dialgo requests will still have an Route header which is actually not RFC conform but ignored by allmost all SIP clients.
So, you're saying it's better to run loose_route() to have it consume this extraneous Route: header?
Better? hard to say
But at least more elegant and standard conform
klaus
Klaus Darilion wrote:
Alex Balashov schrieb:
Klaus Darilion wrote:
I guess as long as all the clients are loose_routers (final target in the RURI) it will work even without loose_route, if you only have 1 proxy between the clients.
Of course the forwarded in-dialgo requests will still have an Route header which is actually not RFC conform but ignored by allmost all SIP clients.
So, you're saying it's better to run loose_route() to have it consume this extraneous Route: header?
Better? hard to say
But at least more elegant and standard conform
Well, thank you, I appreciate the insight. :)
-
Alex Balashov -
Klaus Darilion