[Kamailio-Devel] dropping 200ok?

[Daniel-Constantin Mierla]

On 10/24/08 19:02, Klaus Darilion wrote:
> btw: I do not care about reboots during the transaction. Reboots should 
> happen not that often.
>
> The reason I want to drop replies without matching transactions is that 
> the proxy can be abused as relay.
>   
This is a good reason. Changes should not be that big to drop the reply. 
t_check_trans() should be extended to detect a reply matching a 
transaction, I will add to the todo.

Cheers,
Daniel

> regards
> klaus
>
> Klaus Darilion schrieb:
>   
>> This is somehtin gI like to since years.
>>
>> Check reply and if there is no matching transcation I want to drop it 
>> (regardsless of the response code)
>>
>> For this "drop" must work for every response code
>>
>> regards
>> klaus
>>
>> Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
>>     
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> wondering if makes sense to drop 200ok, maybe other final replies, too.
>>>
>>> Discussing with some folks around, the following use case came up:
>>>
>>> INVITE
>>> restart
>>> 200ok
>>>
>>> Due to restart, INVITE transaction in memory is lost, therefore proper 
>>> accounting is compromised.
>>>
>>> The 200OK is going just fine based on Via and call completes. In this 
>>> situation, something like:
>>>
>>> onreply_route {
>>>     if(!t_check_trans())
>>>     {
>>>         drop;
>>>     }
>>> }
>>>
>>> could protect. Is anyone seeing side effects or workarounds at least for 
>>> accounting? Have in mind that the INVITE might have been redirected, so 
>>> From/To headers might not be relevant for who should pay.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Daniel
>>>
>>>       
>> _______________________________________________
>> Devel mailing list
>> Devel at lists.kamailio.org
>> http://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel
>>     
>
> _______________________________________________
> Devel mailing list
> Devel at lists.kamailio.org
> http://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel
>
>   

-- 
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
http://www.asipto.com