[Serusers] TCP vs UDP
Darren Nay
dnay at libertyisp.com
Thu Feb 12 21:18:09 CET 2004
Hey All,
Are you sure that it's in the latest CVS stable release? I am using the
following cvs command to grab the CVS release from yesterday, but it doesn't
contain the t_relay_to_tcp function. It still contains the t_relay_to
function.
cvs co -r rel_0_8_12 -D 2004-02-11 sip_router
If I'm doing something wrong then please let me know. :) Thanks!
Darren Nay - dnay at libertyisp.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Klaus Darilion" <klaus.mailinglists at pernau.at>
To: "Darren Nay" <dnay at libertyisp.com>
Cc: <serusers at lists.iptel.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 12:44 PM
Subject: Re: [Serusers] TCP vs UDP
> It exists in release 0_8_12, it is in the tm module.
>
> Klaus
>
> Darren Nay wrote:
>
> > Hey Guys,
> >
> > Just another quick question. I'm sure that this is simple.
> >
> > How do I forward all requests out using TCP rather than UDP? I have
> > seen the mention of a function called "t_relay_to_tcp" .. howeve, it
> > does not exist in the latest stable cvs version of ser? has it been
> > removed? or is it only available in the unstable version?
> >
> > Or is there another way to forward all requests as TCP? Currently we
> > are using the t_relay function.
> >
> > I have attached my current ser.cfg file.
> >
> > Thanks for the help!
> >
> > Darren Nay - dnay at libertyisp.com <mailto:dnay at libertyisp.com>
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> > #
> > # ----------- 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
> > #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"
> >
> > # ------------------ module loading ----------------------------------
> >
> > loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/mysql.so"
> > loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/sl.so"
> > loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/tm.so"
> > loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/rr.so"
> > loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/maxfwd.so"
> > loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/acc.so"
> > loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/usrloc.so"
> > loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/registrar.so"
> > loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/textops.so"
> >
> > loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/auth.so"
> > loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/auth_db.so"
> >
> > # !! Nathelper
> > loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/nathelper.so"
> >
> > # ----------------- setting module-specific parameters ---------------
> >
> > # -- usrloc params --
> >
> > modparam("usrloc", "db_mode", 2)
> >
> > # -- auth params --
> > modparam("auth_db", "calculate_ha1", yes)
> > modparam("auth_db", "password_column", "password")
> > modparam("auth_db", "db_url", "mysql://ser:heslo@localhost/ser")
> >
> > # -- rr params --
> > # add value to ;lr param to make some broken UAs happy
> > modparam("rr", "enable_full_lr", 1)
> >
> > # !! Nathelper
> > modparam("registrar", "nat_flag", 6)
> > modparam("nathelper", "natping_interval", 30) # Ping interval 30 s
> > modparam("nathelper", "ping_nated_only", 1) # Ping only clients behind
NAT
> >
> > # -- acc params --
> > modparam("acc", "log_level", 1)
> > modparam("acc", "db_flag", 3)
> > modparam("acc", "db_url","mysql://ser:heslo@localhost/ser")
> >
> > # ------------------------- 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;
> > };
> >
> > # !! Nathelper
> > # Special handling for NATed clients; first, NAT test is
> > # executed: it looks for via!=received and RFC1918 addresses
> > # in Contact (may fail if line-folding is used); also,
> > # the received test should, if completed, should check all
> > # vias for rpesence of received
> > if (nat_uac_test("3")) {
> >
> > # Allow RR-ed requests, as these may indicate that
> > # a NAT-enabled proxy takes care of it; unless it is
> > # a REGISTER
> >
> > if (method == "REGISTER" || ! search("^Record-Route:"))
{
> > log("LOG: Someone trying to register from private
IP, rewriting\n");
> >
> > # This will work only for user agents that support
symmetric
> > # communication. We tested quite many of them and
majority is
> > # smart enough to be symmetric. In some phones it
takes a configuration
> > # option. With Cisco 7960, it is called
NAT_Enable=Yes, with kphone it is
> > # called "symmetric media" and "symmetric
signalling".
> >
> > fix_nated_contact(); # Rewrite contact with source
IP of signalling
> > if (method == "INVITE") {
> > fix_nated_sdp("1"); # Add direction=active to
SDP
> > };
> > force_rport(); # Add rport parameter to topmost Via
> > setflag(6); # Mark as NATed
> > };
> > };
> >
> > setflag(3);
> >
> > # 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
> > if (!method=="REGISTER") record_route();
> >
> > # subsequent messages withing a dialog should take the
> > # path determined by record-routing
> > if (loose_route()) {
> > # mark routing logic in request
> > append_hf("P-hint: rr-enforced\r\n");
> > route(1);
> > break;
> > };
> >
> > if (!uri==myself) {
> > # mark routing logic in request
> > append_hf("P-hint: outbound\r\n");
> > route(1);
> > 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") {
> >
> > # Uncomment this if you want to use digest authentication
> > # if (!www_authorize("iptel.org", "subscriber")) {
> > # www_challenge("iptel.org", "0");
> > # break;
> > # };
> >
> > save("location");
> > break;
> > };
> >
> > lookup("aliases");
> > if (!uri==myself) {
> > append_hf("P-hint: outbound alias\r\n");
> > route(1);
> > break;
> > };
> >
> > # native SIP destinations are handled using our USRLOC
DB
> > if (!lookup("location")) {
> > if (uri =~ "^sip:011.*") {
> > rewritehostport("ld.gw.here");
> > } else {
> > rewritehostport("pstn.gw.here");
> > };
> > route(1);
> > break;
> > };
> > };
> > append_hf("P-hint: usrloc applied\r\n");
> > route(1);
> > }
> >
> > route[1]
> > {
> > # !! Nathelper
> > if (uri=~"[@:](192\.168\.|10\.|172\.(1[6-9]|2[0-9]|3[0-1])\.)"
&& !search("^Route:")){
> > sl_send_reply("479", "We don't forward to private IP
addresses");
> > break;
> > };
> >
> > # if client or server know to be behind a NAT, enable relay
> > if (isflagset(6)) {
> > force_rtp_proxy();
> > };
> >
> > # NAT processing of replies; apply to all transactions (for
example,
> > # re-INVITEs from public to private UA are hard to identify as
> > # NATed at the moment of request processing); look at replies
> > t_on_reply("1");
> >
> > # send it out now; use stateful forwarding as it works reliably
> > # even for UDP2TCP
> > setflag(3);
> > if (!t_relay()) {
> > sl_reply_error();
> > };
> > }
> >
> > # !! Nathelper
> > onreply_route[1] {
> > # NATed transaction ?
> > if (isflagset(6) && status =~ "(183)|2[0-9][0-9]") {
> > fix_nated_contact();
> > force_rtp_proxy();
> > # otherwise, is it a transaction behind a NAT and we did not
> > # know at time of request processing ? (RFC1918 contacts)
> > } else if (nat_uac_test("1")) {
> > fix_nated_contact();
> > };
> > }
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Serusers mailing list
> > serusers at lists.iptel.org
> > http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
>
>
More information about the sr-users
mailing list