2 Sep
2005
2 Sep
'05
10:28 p.m.
Hi,
I need SER to sequentially try 3 URIs, while using a unique token for the
1st and 3rd UAS and no token for the 2nd one. I have tried using
'append_hf' and 'remove_hf' functions to add and remove header fields, but
it does not exactly do what I need. Calls to "remove_hf" do not make any
difference. I guess 'remove_hf' only removes header values from the
received INVITE message. I have tried using the CPL logic below. Any help
would be very appreciated.
Best Regards,
Dmitry
route {
..
append_hf("P-OSP-Auth-Token: open.settlement.token.number.1\r\n");
t_on_failure("1");
t_relay();
# Want the 1st UAS to receive only the token above - WORKS!
..
}
failure_route[1] {
..
remove_hf("P-OSP-Auth-Token");
t_on_failure("2");
t_relay();
# Want the 2nd UAS to not receive any tokens - does NOT work, it
receives the token from the 1st attempt
..
}
failure_route[2] {
..
append_hf("P-OSP-Auth-Token: open.settlement.token.number.3\r\n");
t_on_failure("2");
t_relay();
# Want the 3rd UAS to receive only the token above - does NOT work, it
receives both tokens from the 1st and 3rd attempts
..
}
6 Sep
6 Sep
6 p.m.
I commited patch which adds support for branch_route sections, this is
what you are looking for, it allows you to modify each branch
individually:
http://lists.iptel.org/pipermail/serdev/2005-August/005371.html
Jan.
On 02-09-2005 15:28, Dmitry Isakbayev wrote:
Hi,
I need SER to sequentially try 3 URIs, while using a unique token for the
1st and 3rd UAS and no token for the 2nd one. I have tried using
'append_hf' and 'remove_hf' functions to add and remove header fields,
but
it does not exactly do what I need. Calls to "remove_hf" do not make any
difference. I guess 'remove_hf' only removes header values from the
received INVITE message. I have tried using the CPL logic below. Any
help would be very appreciated.
Best Regards,
Dmitry
route {
..
append_hf("P-OSP-Auth-Token: open.settlement.token.number.1\r\n");
t_on_failure("1");
t_relay();
# Want the 1st UAS to receive only the token above - WORKS!
..
}
failure_route[1] {
..
remove_hf("P-OSP-Auth-Token");
t_on_failure("2");
t_relay();
# Want the 2nd UAS to not receive any tokens - does NOT work, it
receives the token from the 1st attempt
..
}
failure_route[2] {
..
append_hf("P-OSP-Auth-Token: open.settlement.token.number.3\r\n");
t_on_failure("2");
t_relay();
# Want the 3rd UAS to receive only the token above - does NOT work, it
receives both tokens from the 1st and 3rd attempts
..
}
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
6:06 p.m.
Hi Jan!
Dmitry talked about sequential forking and failure routes. Does
branch_routes also works when called sequentially from failure routes?
regards
klaus
Jan Janak wrote:
I commited patch which adds support for branch_route
sections, this is
what you are looking for, it allows you to modify each branch
individually:
http://lists.iptel.org/pipermail/serdev/2005-August/005371.html
Jan.
On 02-09-2005 15:28, Dmitry Isakbayev wrote:
Hi,
I need SER to sequentially try 3 URIs, while using a unique token for the
1st and 3rd UAS and no token for the 2nd one. I have tried using
'append_hf' and 'remove_hf' functions to add and remove header fields, but
it does not exactly do what I need. Calls to "remove_hf" do not make any
difference. I guess 'remove_hf' only removes header values from the
received INVITE message. I have tried using the CPL logic below. Any
help would be very appreciated.
Best Regards,
Dmitry
route {
..
append_hf("P-OSP-Auth-Token: open.settlement.token.number.1\r\n");
t_on_failure("1");
t_relay();
# Want the 1st UAS to receive only the token above - WORKS!
..
}
failure_route[1] {
..
remove_hf("P-OSP-Auth-Token");
t_on_failure("2");
t_relay();
# Want the 2nd UAS to not receive any tokens - does NOT work, it
receives the token from the 1st attempt
..
}
failure_route[2] {
..
append_hf("P-OSP-Auth-Token: open.settlement.token.number.3\r\n");
t_on_failure("2");
t_relay();
# Want the 3rd UAS to receive only the token above - does NOT work, it
receives both tokens from the 1st and 3rd attempts
..
}
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
6:28 p.m.
On 06-09-2005 17:06, Klaus Darilion wrote:
Hi Jan!
Dmitry talked about sequential forking and failure routes. Does
branch_routes also works when called sequentially from failure routes?
Yes, it should work too, but you need to call t_on_branch again from
any failure_route, because the flag is automatically reset after use.
Jan.
regards
klaus
Jan Janak wrote:
I commited patch which adds support for
branch_route sections, this is
what you are looking for, it allows you to modify each branch
individually:
http://lists.iptel.org/pipermail/serdev/2005-August/005371.html
Jan.
On 02-09-2005 15:28, Dmitry Isakbayev wrote:
Hi,
I need SER to sequentially try 3 URIs, while using a unique token for the
1st and 3rd UAS and no token for the 2nd one. I have tried using
'append_hf' and 'remove_hf' functions to add and remove header fields,
but it does not exactly do what I need. Calls to "remove_hf" do not make
any difference. I guess 'remove_hf' only removes header values from the
received INVITE message. I have tried using the CPL logic below. Any
help would be very appreciated.
Best Regards,
Dmitry
route {
..
append_hf("P-OSP-Auth-Token: open.settlement.token.number.1\r\n");
t_on_failure("1");
t_relay();
# Want the 1st UAS to receive only the token above - WORKS!
..
}
failure_route[1] {
..
remove_hf("P-OSP-Auth-Token");
t_on_failure("2");
t_relay();
# Want the 2nd UAS to not receive any tokens - does NOT work, it
receives the token from the 1st attempt
..
}
failure_route[2] {
..
append_hf("P-OSP-Auth-Token: open.settlement.token.number.3\r\n");
t_on_failure("2");
t_relay();
# Want the 3rd UAS to receive only the token above - does NOT work, it
receives both tokens from the 1st and 3rd attempts
..
}
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
7:19 p.m.
New subject: [Serusers] Re: Appending different authorization tokens for every branch.
Hi Jan and Klaus,
Thank you for pointing me to the new 'branch_routes' functionality. Sounds
like it is going to be a good solution for my case. I will need to take a
close look at how it works.
If I call a module function from the "branch_routes" block, can it figure
out its branch index?
Best Regards,
Dmitry
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jan Janak" <jan(a)iptel.org>
To: "Klaus Darilion" <klaus.mailinglists(a)pernau.at>
Cc: "Dmitry Isakbayev" <isakdim(a)gmail.com>om>;
<serusers(a)lists.iptel.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 11:28 AM
Subject: Re: [Serusers] Appending different authorization tokens for every
branch.
On 06-09-2005 17:06, Klaus Darilion wrote:
Hi Jan!
Dmitry talked about sequential forking and failure routes. Does
branch_routes also works when called sequentially from failure routes?
Yes, it should work too, but you need to call t_on_branch again from
any failure_route, because the flag is automatically reset after use.
Jan.
>
> regards
> klaus
>
>
> Jan Janak wrote:
> >I commited patch which adds support for branch_route sections, this is
> >what you are looking for, it allows you to modify each branch
> >individually:
> >
> >http://lists.iptel.org/pipermail/serdev/2005-August/005371.html
> >
> > Jan.
> >
> >On 02-09-2005 15:28, Dmitry Isakbayev wrote:
> >
> >>Hi,
> >>
> >>I need SER to sequentially try 3 URIs, while using a unique token for
> >>the
> >>1st and 3rd UAS and no token for the 2nd one. I have tried using
> >>'append_hf' and 'remove_hf' functions to add and remove
header fields,
> >>but it does not exactly do what I need. Calls to "remove_hf" do
not
> >>make
> >>any difference. I guess 'remove_hf' only removes header values from
> >>the
> >>received INVITE message. I have tried using the CPL logic below. Any
> >>help would be very appreciated.
> >>
> >>Best Regards,
> >>Dmitry
> >>
> >>
> >>route {
> >> ..
> >> append_hf("P-OSP-Auth-Token:
open.settlement.token.number.1\r\n");
> >> t_on_failure("1");
> >> t_relay();
> >> # Want the 1st UAS to receive only the token above - WORKS!
> >> ..
> >>}
> >>
> >>failure_route[1] {
> >> ..
> >> remove_hf("P-OSP-Auth-Token");
> >> t_on_failure("2");
> >> t_relay();
> >> # Want the 2nd UAS to not receive any tokens - does NOT work, it
> >>receives the token from the 1st attempt
> >> ..
> >>}
> >>
> >>failure_route[2] {
> >> ..
> >> append_hf("P-OSP-Auth-Token:
open.settlement.token.number.3\r\n");
> >> t_on_failure("2");
> >> t_relay();
> >> # Want the 3rd UAS to receive only the token above - does NOT work, it
> >>receives both tokens from the 1st and 3rd attempts
> >> ..
> >>}
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>Serusers mailing list
> >>serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
> >>http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Serusers mailing list
> >serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
> >http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
> >
> >
>
7:25 p.m.
New subject: [Serusers] Re: Appending different authorization tokens for every branch.
On 06-09-2005 12:19, Dmitry Isakbayev wrote:
Hi Jan and Klaus,
Thank you for pointing me to the new 'branch_routes' functionality. Sounds
like it is going to be a good solution for my case. I will need to take a
close look at how it works.
If I call a module function from the "branch_routes" block, can it figure
out its branch index?
No, but you can test for the value of the Request-URI.
Jan.
7023
days inactive
7027
days old
5 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Dmitry Isakbayev -
Jan Janak -
Klaus Darilion