[Serusers] [jcollins at asgardsrealm.net: Routing difference between 0.8.10 and 0.8.12]
Jamin W. Collins
jcollins at asgardsrealm.net
Fri Dec 19 00:37:06 CET 2003
On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 10:58:22PM +0100, Jan Janak wrote:
> I looked at the attached dumps. First of all, 0.8.10 and 0.8.12 handle
> record routing differently. 0.8.10 implements strict routing while
> 0.8.12 implements loose routing.
>
> The bug is in your script. Because 0.8.12 implements loose routing, the
> Request-URI will contain the Contact of the callee. The Contact contains
> the number of the callee -- 5803932.
So, should I be checking a different variable? If so, which? I didn't
find anything about this in the Admin Guide.
> In your script you are searching for numbers beginning with 580 and
> rewrite the hostname to a gateway. ACK and BYE will also contain the
> number in the Request-URI -- see above, but they don't contain the IP of
> your server in the Request-URI -- the IP of the callee is there.
>
> But you don't check this and rewrite anyway.
>
> The proper solution would be to search for numbers beginning with 580
> inside the if (uri==myself) condition.
I've moved the search inside the if (uri==myself) condition as you
suggested. However, this has not (as I suspected) changed the behavior
of the routing. The 580XXXX calls still do not get routed to the
gateway as they did in 0.8.10. In the attached ngrep output you can see
a call to sip:5803932 at 172.21.30.53 starting at 2003/12/18
17:15:44.976502. However this request makes it past the 580XXXX check
and is routed instead to 172.21.30.10, which is not what I would expect.
Is there still something wrong with the new config? Am I checking the
wrong variable?
> BTW, all searches and rewrites of Request-URI should be inside
> uri==myself condition -- the condition will be true only for requests
> establishing a dialog.
>
> The Request-URI of requests WITHIN a dialog (BYE, ACK)
> must not be changed.
>
> In addition to that 0.8.10 and 0.8.12 configs are different. Your config
> for 0.8.10 doesn't use record routing while the config for 0.8.12 does.
I am aware that they are slightly different. I used the 0.8.12 default
config as a starting point and attempted to translate the working 0.8.10
configuration to the 0.8.12 syntax.
--
Jamin W. Collins
Linux is not The Answer. Yes is the answer. Linux is The Question. - Neo
-------------- next part --------------
#
# $Id: ser.cfg,v 1.21.4.1 2003/11/10 15:35:15 andrei Exp $
#
# simple quick-start config script
#
# ----------- global configuration parameters ------------------------
debug=3 # debug level (cmd line: -dddddddddd)
fork=yes
log_stderror=no # (cmd line: -E)
/* Uncomment these lines to enter debugging mode
debug=7
fork=no
log_stderror=yes
*/
check_via=no # (cmd. line: -v)
dns=no # (cmd. line: -r)
rev_dns=no # (cmd. line: -R)
port=5060
children=4
fifo="/tmp/ser_fifo"
# proxy server IP
listen="172.21.30.53"
# ------------------ module loading ----------------------------------
# Uncomment this if you want to use SQL database
loadmodule "/usr/lib/ser/modules/mysql.so"
loadmodule "/usr/lib/ser/modules/sl.so"
loadmodule "/usr/lib/ser/modules/tm.so"
loadmodule "/usr/lib/ser/modules/rr.so"
loadmodule "/usr/lib/ser/modules/maxfwd.so"
loadmodule "/usr/lib/ser/modules/usrloc.so"
loadmodule "/usr/lib/ser/modules/registrar.so"
# Uncomment this if you want digest authentication
# mysql.so must be loaded !
#loadmodule "/usr/lib/ser/modules/auth.so"
#loadmodule "/usr/lib/ser/modules/auth_db.so"
# ----------------- setting module-specific parameters ---------------
# persistent user registrations
modparam("usrloc", "db_mode", 2)
modparam("registrar", "default_expires", 172800)
modparam("tm", "fr_inv_timer", 5 )
modparam("tm", "fr_timer", 5 )
# -- rr params --
# add value to ;lr param to make some broken UAs happy
modparam("rr", "enable_full_lr", 1)
# ------------------------- request routing logic -------------------
# main routing logic
route{
# initial sanity checks -- messages with
# max_forwards==0, or excessively long requests
if (!mf_process_maxfwd_header("10")) {
sl_send_reply("483","Too Many Hops");
break;
};
if ( msg:len > max_len ) {
sl_send_reply("513", "Message too big");
break;
};
# we record-route all messages -- to make sure that
# subsequent messages will go through our proxy; that's
# particularly good if upstream and downstream entities
# use different transport protocol
record_route();
# loose-route processing
if (loose_route()) {
t_relay();
break;
};
# if the request is for other domain use UsrLoc
# (in case, it does not work, use the following command
# with proper names and addresses in it)
if (uri==myself) {
if (method=="REGISTER") {
save("location");
log(1, "Registration request.");
break;
};
# check for 911 calls
if (uri=~"^sip:911 at .*") {
log(1, "911 Call");
rewritehost("172.21.30.51");
t_relay();
break;
};
# pass local calls off to the gateway
if (uri=~"^sip:580[0-9][0-9][0-9][0-9]@") {
log(1, "Local call sent to gateway");
rewritehost("172.21.30.51");
t_relay();
break;
};
# native SIP destinations are handled using our USRLOC DB
if (!lookup("location")) {
log(1, "Location lookup failure.");
if ((src_ip==172.21.30.10) || (src_ip==172.21.30.12)) {
log(1, "Request from IC server trying to go back
to IC server.");
sl_reply_error();
} else {
rewritehost("172.21.30.10");
log (1, "Sending request to the first server.");
t_on_failure ("1");
t_relay();
};
break;
};
};
# forward to current uri now; use stateful forwarding; that
# works reliably even if we forward from TCP to UDP
if (!t_relay()) {
sl_reply_error();
};
}
failure_route[1]{
rewritehost("172.21.30.12");
log(1, "Sending request to the second server.");
t_on_failure("2");
append_branch();
t_relay();
}
failure_route[2]{
rewritehost("172.22.30.51");
log(1, "Sending request to the gateway.");
append_branch();
t_relay();
}
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ser-20031218.gz
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 6707 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.sip-router.org/pipermail/sr-users/attachments/20031218/7b88e403/attachment.obj>
More information about the sr-users
mailing list