[Serusers] One failure_route problem remaining

[Corey S. McFadden]

Disregard my question on proxy_authorize.  When we rolled back to the 
example I forgot to re-add the loadmodule permissions.so line.  Doh!

-Corey



On Thu, 8 Sep 2005, Corey S. McFadden wrote:

> 
> 
> Greger,
> 
> Thanks again for the response. We're working with the vendor now on the GW 
> problem.  They think their equipment might not be responding properly to 
> the OK from Asterisk.  (It doesn't seem to be a very talkative piece of 
> equipment.)
> 
> In any case, a few of the other questions linger:
> 
> > If your UACs can successfully register, proxy_authorize should also work. 
> > The INVITE should be authenticated to avoid non-registered users to make 
> > calls.
> 
> Doesn't seem to be the case.  Really not too sure on this one.  Do you 
> think it might have something to do with the realm not coming through from 
> the UA?
> 
> Anything look wrong to anyone here?
> 
>         if (!proxy_authorize("my.net","subscriber")) {
>                 proxy_challenge("my.net","0");
>                 break;
>         } else if (!check_from()) {
>                 sl_send_reply("403", "Use From=ID");
>                 break;
>         };
>         consume_credentials();
> 
> 
> > > - I notice a lot of "Warning: sl_send_reply: I won't send a reply for
> > >   ACK!!" but don't know if this is significant or not.  From what I've
> > >   read it sounds like ACKs are getting an sl_reply rather than being
> > >   t_relayed but I didn't really modify anything related ... ?
> > 
> > Yes, this error tells you that ACKs end in an sl_reply, which they 
> > shouldn't. You need to identify the type of ACKs (probably related to your 
> > GW, as a guess), so you can make sure the ACKs are handled correctly.
> 
> I added:
>         if (uri==myself) {
> 
>                 if (method=="ACK") {
>                         route(1);
>                         break;
> 		} else if ...
> 
> to the main route's method check and it didn't seem to help.  If this is 
> an acceptable method I'll have to continue to research to see how an 
> sl_reply could be happening. 
> 
> 
> That should do it for now.  Things are definitely moving in the right 
> direction.
> 
> Thanks again for all the assistance!!
> 
> -Corey
> 
> 
> 
> *********************************************
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content, and is believed to be clean.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Serusers mailing list
> serusers at lists.iptel.org
> http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
> 


*********************************************
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content, and is believed to be clean.