[Kamailio-Users] In-dialog request correlation without loose routing?

[Alex Balashov]

And specifically, the ambiguity I am referring to in your narrative is 
the following:

1) In your first reply to me after I posted the configs, you said:

"Your config is bogus.  You are not doing proper record-routing (you
commented out that section). In-dialog requests are matched during 
record-route handling, regardless of the dialog match mode."

2) In your subsequent reply to yourself and clarification of the issue 
with reference to the dialog docs, you say:

"The documentation is a little bit fuzzy about this, but here's the hint:
http://kamailio.org/docs/modules/1.4.x/dialog#id2507978
http://kamailio.org/docs/modules/1.4.x/dialog#id2508031

<quote>
This PV will be available only for sequential requests, after doing
loose_route().
</quote>

So it means that you must perform loose_route() if you want to catch
in-dialog request and have a consistent dialog state.  With your
config, all the dialogs will just time out ..."

3) So, which one is it?  If I need to record_route(), that is obvious; 
you cannot monitor dialogs if subsequent in-dialog requests do not pass 
through the proxy.  I am doing that.

If it is loose_route() that I need to correlate subsequent in-dialog 
requests, why?  As you said, if no RR cookies are being used, why should 
the proxy care about the Route: header?

Thanks,

-- Alex

Ovidiu Sas wrote:

> The cookie attribute is not used at all in mode 2.  Inspect your
> traffic and you will see that there are no rr coockes  and the dialog
> matching is working ok (in mode 2).
> The record-route mechanism is used as a _hook_ by the dialog module to
> intercept in dialog requests.  I don't know how to put this better in
> words ...
> Hope that this clarifies your dialog matching issue.
> 
> So ... the dlg_match_mode works as advertised in the doc as long as
> you have a proper implementation of the record rote mechanism.
> For mode 0 and 1 you will have cookies in the Record-Route headers.
> For mode 2 you will have no cookies in the Record-Route headers and
> the matching will still work.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Ovidiu Sas
> 
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 1:58 PM, Alex Balashov
> <abalashov at evaristesys.com> wrote:
>> Yep.  That was the conclusion I came to as well;  even though
>> dlg_match_mode insinuates that the cookie attribute is optional,
>> implying there are other ways to match subsequent requests as well,
>> it is actually not.
>>
>> On Thu, October 16, 2008 1:45 pm, Ovidiu Sas wrote:
>>>> That was the topic of my original post:  how to correlate dialogs purely
>>>> based on SIP attributes without the use of loose-routing.
>>> short answer: you can't (and the matching method doesn't matter).
>>> proper loose-routing is a must.
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Alex Balashov
>> Evariste Systems
>> Web    : http://www.evaristesys.com/
>> Tel    : (+1) (678) 954-0670
>> Direct : (+1) (678) 954-0671
>> Mobile : (+1) (706) 338-8599
>>
>>


-- 
Alex Balashov
Evariste Systems
Web    : http://www.evaristesys.com/
Tel    : (+1) (678) 954-0670
Direct : (+1) (678) 954-0671
Mobile : (+1) (706) 338-8599