[Serdev] SER's core design features(process model/parser/lumps/script) - was: So who/what is SER for, anyway?

[Klaus Darilion]

Martin Hoffmann wrote:
> Klaus Darilion wrote:
>> Regarding the script I fully agree with Dragos!
>>
>> IMO there are several things which should be hided from configuration. 
>> E.g. the terrible if(method!=REGISTER) record_route();
>>
>> IMO we should have an option record_route=yes and we are done.
> 
> Jesus, no! The point of having optional record routing on a per-request
> basis is that you can only have record routing if you need this.
> 
> Consider an INVITE request spiraling through your proxy for whatever
> reason. Do I need to see the BYE six times? No. But I want see it once.
> 
> 	if (method != "REGISTER && src_ip != myself) {
> 		record_route ();
> 	}

Does this works also for all accounting things? If you spiral through 
the proxy then you have different transactions, thus having different 
accounting logs. Wouldn't you like to have a BYE for each INIVTE?

regards
klaus

> 
> Done.
> 
>> Also the whole NAT traversal. This should be handled globally too, e.g.
>>
>> perform_nat_traversal=no/always/ifneeded (this of course automatically 
>> activates the rtp proxy - no need to check for replies with 183/200 - no 
>> need to check for reINVITEs, ...)
> 
> So your NAT traversal strategy is the same as mine? I do have a couple
> of special things which I can only do because the script allows me to do
> whatever I want.
> 
>> Thus, there is lots of potential to make ser more user friendly. The 
>> above examples do not have any performance impact, but prevents users 
>> from having lots of bugs in their message handling and NAT traversal).
>>
>> I already can year you crying that we will loose all the flexibility 
>> when doing this - but in the end we will have a very flexible SIP proxy 
>> which will be used by geeks and there will be not so flexible SIP 
>> proxies (asterisk, repro ...) which will be used by admins without a PhD 
>> in SIP.
> 
> Yes. And now please explain what is wrong with this. I need a proxy that
> suits my needs as a large ITSP. I really don't care about a twenty
> people office. If "my" proxy can be used by them as well, fine. But I do
> not see why I should use an inferior product just to please some people
> for whom there already are perfectly fine alternatives.
> 
> That's just my sixteen øre as someone who gets all the strange
> interoperability problems on his desk and needs fix them. Ultimately,
> the fate of SER is in the hands of the core developers.
>  
>> PS: We could start with a script which generates the ser config from a 
>> template file and a user configuration file as starting point for users 
>> (like the exim4 configuration in debian)
> 
> Greger is working on it. What I've seen of it is very promising,
> so bear with him.
> 
> Regards,
> Martin
> 


-- 
Klaus Darilion
nic.at