19 Dec
2013
19 Dec
'13
7:19 a.m.
i started to wonder, why my config does not work when there is
';user=phone' param in r-uri. in order to investigate, i added these to
the config:
xlog("L_INFO", "r-uri = '$ru'\n");
xlog("L_INFO", "r-uri params = '$(ru{uri.params})'\n");
xlog("L_INFO", "r-uri params = '$sel(ruri.params)'\n");
and made two tests. in the first, r-uri param is ;user=phone:
Dec 19 07:08:10 rautu /usr/sbin/sip-proxy[5107]: INFO: r-uri =
'sip:+35862345670@test.tutpro.com;user=phone'
Dec 19 07:08:10 rautu /usr/sbin/sip-proxy[5107]: INFO: r-uri params = ''
Dec 19 07:08:10 rautu /usr/sbin/sip-proxy[5107]: INFO: r-uri params =
'<null>'
and in the second r-uri param is ;param=value:
Dec 19 07:09:59 rautu /usr/sbin/sip-proxy[5107]: INFO: r-uri =
'sip:+35862345670@test.tutpro.com;param=value'
Dec 19 07:09:59 rautu /usr/sbin/sip-proxy[5107]: INFO: r-uri params =
'param=value'
Dec 19 07:09:59 rautu /usr/sbin/sip-proxy[5107]: INFO: r-uri params =
'param=value'
note the difference. in the first, neither uri transformation nor ruri select
works, but they work in the second.
i checked from rfc3261 and both request uris are syntactically valid and
in both cases there is a valid r-uri parameter.
my current hack is to use tobody.params, but would like to get rid of
it.
-- juha
19 Dec
19 Dec
10:06 a.m.
Hello,
I expect it has to do with the special requirements on handling uri
enforced by 'user=phone'. Something related was on sr-dev few time ago:
- http://lists.sip-router.org/pipermail/sr-dev/2013-December/022267.html
- http://lists.sip-router.org/pipermail/sr-dev/2013-December/022269.html
At that time I checked the sources and parameters are linked to another
field in uri structure than without it, thus the params field is somehow
left empty. I had no time to investigate more the specs, maybe looking
at parse_uri() will shed more light.
Cheers,
Daniel
On 19/12/13 06:19, Juha Heinanen wrote:
i started to wonder, why my config does not work when
there is
';user=phone' param in r-uri. in order to investigate, i added these to
the config:
xlog("L_INFO", "r-uri = '$ru'\n");
xlog("L_INFO", "r-uri params = '$(ru{uri.params})'\n");
xlog("L_INFO", "r-uri params = '$sel(ruri.params)'\n");
and made two tests. in the first, r-uri param is ;user=phone:
Dec 19 07:08:10 rautu /usr/sbin/sip-proxy[5107]: INFO: r-uri =
'sip:+35862345670@test.tutpro.com;user=phone'
Dec 19 07:08:10 rautu /usr/sbin/sip-proxy[5107]: INFO: r-uri params = ''
Dec 19 07:08:10 rautu /usr/sbin/sip-proxy[5107]: INFO: r-uri params =
'<null>'
and in the second r-uri param is ;param=value:
Dec 19 07:09:59 rautu /usr/sbin/sip-proxy[5107]: INFO: r-uri =
'sip:+35862345670@test.tutpro.com;param=value'
Dec 19 07:09:59 rautu /usr/sbin/sip-proxy[5107]: INFO: r-uri params =
'param=value'
Dec 19 07:09:59 rautu /usr/sbin/sip-proxy[5107]: INFO: r-uri params =
'param=value'
note the difference. in the first, neither uri transformation nor ruri select
works, but they work in the second.
i checked from rfc3261 and both request uris are syntactically valid and
in both cases there is a valid r-uri parameter.
my current hack is to use tobody.params, but would like to get rid of
it.
-- juha
_______________________________________________
SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list
sr-users(a)lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla - http://www.asipto.com
http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
11:16 a.m.
Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes:
I expect it has to do with the special requirements on
handling uri
enforced by 'user=phone'. Something related was on sr-dev few time
ago:
;user=phone may mean something special, but when it comes to request-uri
parameter syntax, it is just one parameter among others:
SIP-URI = "sip:" [ userinfo ] hostport
uri-parameters [ headers ]
uri-parameters = *( ";" uri-parameter)
uri-parameter = transport-param / user-param / method-param
/ ttl-param / maddr-param / lr-param / other-param
other-param = pname [ "=" pvalue ]
things get worse when more params follow user param:
Dec 19 11:07:07 siika /usr/sbin/sip-proxy[8550]: INFO: r-uri =
'sip:+35862345670@test.tutpro.com;user=phone;param=value'
Dec 19 11:07:07 siika /usr/sbin/sip-proxy[8550]: INFO: r-uri params = ''
Dec 19 11:07:07 siika /usr/sbin/sip-proxy[8550]: INFO: r-uri params =
'<null>'
i.e., it is not just user param that is missing from transformation
result, but also any param that follows it.
-- juha
4:06 p.m.
Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes:
At that time I checked the sources and parameters are
linked to another
field in uri structure than without it, thus the params field is somehow
left empty. I had no time to investigate more the specs, maybe looking
at parse_uri() will shed more light.
looks like uri param transformations need to take params from sip_uri
sip_params field:
str params; /*!< Parameters */
str sip_params; /*!< Parameters of the sip: URI.
* (If a tel: URI is embedded in a sip: URI, then
* params points to the parameters of the tel: URI,
* and sip_params to the parameters of the sip: URI.
*/
perhaps they now take them from params field and that causes the
problem?
-- juha
4:37 p.m.
On 19/12/13 15:25, Juha Heinanen wrote:
Juha Heinanen writes:
Have you checked
to see if the sip_params field is also set when
'user=phone' doesn't exist?
Cheers,
Daniel
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla - http://www.asipto.com
http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
perhaps they now take them from params field and
that causes the
problem?
that was it. i just pushed a fix to master and will cherry pick to
4.1. i think that @ruri.params select would need to be fixed too.
4:42 p.m.
Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes:
Have you checked to see if the sip_params field is
also set when
'user=phone' doesn't exist?
yes, my understanding is that it is set as the first thing always:
switch(uri->type){
case SIPS_URI_T:
case SIP_URI_T:
/* save the original sip: URI parameters in sip_params */
uri->sip_params=uri->params;
but i didn't read the whole code.
-- juha
4:44 p.m.
On 19/12/13 15:42, Juha Heinanen wrote:
Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes:
OK. I thought you tested with two URI, one
with and the other without
user=phone. If that is good, then all should be fine.
Cheers,
Daniel
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla - http://www.asipto.com
http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
Have you checked to see if the sip_params field
is also set when
'user=phone' doesn't exist?
yes, my understanding is that it is set as
the first thing always:
switch(uri->type){
case SIPS_URI_T:
case SIP_URI_T:
/* save the original sip: URI parameters in sip_params */
uri->sip_params=uri->params;
but i didn't read the whole code.
3997
days inactive
3997
days old
7 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Daniel-Constantin Mierla -
Juha Heinanen