[Serusers] NOTIFY header construction for mid-dialog presence event package

[samuel]

Just reporting...

That's the parameter I needed. I set notify_is_refresh to 0 and everything
seems to work through NAT.

Thanks,
Samuel.

2007/8/6, Vaclav Kubart <vaclav.kubart at iptel.org>:
>
> Yes, you are right.
>
> But Maxim has introduced new module parameter by which you can say, that
> NOTIFY is not target refresh request and thus NOTIFY responses won't
> refresh the target.
>
> From my point of view is this only temporary hack (because NOTIFY was in
> some discussions aggreed to be target refresh). Better solution is
> probably to let the NOTIFY go through config script and process it and
> its responses by nathelper.
>
>         Vaclav
>
> On Po, srp 06, 2007 at 10:24:17 +0200, samuel wrote:
> > mmmm
> >
> > coming back to the discussion....the missing OK Contact mangle happened
> with
> > a separated prosence proxy...
> >
> > I was wondering...In the case of a single SIP server
> > (proxy,registrar,presence,...) when the "presence" part sends the NOTIFY
> to
> > a natted UA and this latter one replies with the 200OK, the Contact
> would
> > contain the internal IP and since this NOTIFY is not handled by the SER
> > route config file , it can not be managed by nathelper|mediaproxy
> options.
> > This would cause a modification in the target of the dialog to the
> internal
> > IP (following RFC 3261) and the presence dialog would be useless because
> no
> > notifications would work....am I right?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Samuel.
> >
> > 2007/8/3, samuel <samu60 at gmail.com>:
> > >
> > > Ok.
> > >
> > > I found out the "problem", there was a missing NAT handling of the
> > > responses, and the 200 OK response updated the target dialog with a
> > > non-routable IP. That's why further messages had the wronf Req-URI.
> > >
> > > Thanks for your pointers,
> > > sam.
> > >
> > > 2007/8/2, Vaclav Kubart <vaclav.kubart at iptel.org>:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Samuel,
> > > > Maxim Sobolev was fighting with NAT and presence some time ago.
> > > >
> > > > I was trying to allow calling script route block when sending NOTIFY
> to
> > > > allow its modifications, but I had not enough time to get results.
> > > >
> > > > The NOTIFY should be constructed according RFC 3261; the request URI
> > > > should be the value from Contact of the SUBSCRIBE request (if only
> loose
> > > > routers in routes appear).
> > > >
> > > > To, From, Via and routes should follow RFC 3261 too.
> > > >
> > > > Contact header value is the address at which the SUBSCRIBE request
> > > > arrives to the server (according examples in RFC 3856, this is
> > > > controversial but possible).
> > > >
> > > > Modifying of async_auth_queries should have no influence on sent
> > > > NOTIFYs. If does, it is probably a bug.
> > > >
> > > > All headers you mentioned are derived from dialog initiating
> SUBSCRIBE
> > > > request as RFC says.
> > > >
> > > >         Vaclav
> > > >
> > > > On Čt, srp 02, 2007 at 12:05:02 +0200, samuel wrote:
> > > > > Hi all!!!
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm experiencing quite difficulties setting up a dedicated (and
> > > > separated)
> > > > > presence server with NATted end-points and the dstblacklist
> feature.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'd like to get some info about the construction of the most
> important
> > > >
> > > > > headers (Req-URI,Contact,To,From,Via,Routr) for the different
> NOTIFY
> > > > > modalities depending on the state of the subscription.
> > > > >
> > > > > Setting up async_auth_queries I've seen the pending and the active
> > > > NOTIFY
> > > > > have different Req-URI and the second one is blocked by the NAT
> > > > router.
> > > > > Further mid-dialog NOTIFYs providing changes in the presence
> status
> > > > has also
> > > > > different headers...
> > > > > My main concern is whether the info for constructing the routing
> > > > headers is
> > > > > taken from location table, from watcherinfo.dialog table, or from
> the
> > > > > incoming message...I know I could follow the code but an
> explanation
> > > > would
> > > > > provide a really helpfull overview and later checking the code
> will be
> > > > much
> > > > > simpler.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks in advance,
> > > > > Samuel.
> > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Serusers mailing list
> > > > > Serusers at lists.iptel.org
> > > > > http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Serusers mailing list
> > Serusers at lists.iptel.org
> > http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sip-router.org/pipermail/sr-users/attachments/20070807/27da05b0/attachment.htm>