[Users] record_route_preset()

[Bogdan-Andrei Iancu]

Hi Doug,

I just tested and I'm not able to reproduce your problem. The correct 
usage is:
    record_route_preset("172.31.140.205");
What version of openser are you using?  if devel, be sure you have the 
latest CVS version.

anyhow, for your purposes, the correct approach will be :
    force_send_socket(udp:172.31.140.205);
    record_route();
by this you will select the desired outgoing interface.

regards,
bogdan

Douglas Garstang wrote:

>I have OpenSER installed on a system with 4 network interfaces. When OpenSER sends out an INVITE to an Asterisk system, it puts the Record-Route header in the SIP message:
>
>U 216.186.140.205:5060 -> 172.31.140.203:5060
>INVITE sip:9220402 at pbx1-mgt0.ipt.oneeighty.com:5060;user=phone SIP/2.0.
>Record-Route: <sip:216.186.140.205;ftag=C0A1B748-F1234161;lr=on>.
>
>However, I would like it to put a different IP address in the Record-Route header, to force the Asterisk system at the other end to send replies back on a certain interface. I tried using record_route_preset instead of record_route, like this:
>
>record_route_preset("172.31.140.205");
>
>Now, when SIP messages go out, they look like this:
>
>U 216.187.140.205:5060 -> 172.31.140.203:5060
>INVITE sip:9220402 at pbx1-mgt0.ipt.oneeighty.com:5060;user=phone SIP/2.0.
>Record-Route: <sip:9220402 at sip:172.31.140.205:5060;ftag=D26AD271-F90F8EC6;lr=on>.
>
>Huh? Why has OpenSER put the to URI in the record route? That doesn't look right to me.
>
>I also tried using record_route_preset like this:
>record_route_preset("172.31.140.205:5060");
>record_route_preset("sip:172.31.140.205");
>record_route_preset("sip:172.31.140.205:5060");
>
>and it always puts the to uri in there. Why???? Would GREATLY appreciate some advice on this.
>Doug.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Helge Waastad [mailto:helge at smartnet.no]
>Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2006 8:53 AM
>To: Andreas.granig at inode.info
>Cc: devel at openser.org
>Subject: [Devel] Re: Loadbalancing using Path-HF with NAT-Support
>
>
>Hi,
>Looking forward to try it out.
>
>Until now, the path-header (including nat-ping script) works as a charm
>for me, but this will probably make my loadbalancer much cleaner :-)
>
>br hw
>
>
>
>  
>