[SR-Users] Drouting usage
Javier Gallart
jgallartm at gmail.com
Tue Oct 26 13:33:06 CEST 2010
Thanks Marius,
that was it.
Regards
Javier
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 10:08 PM, <sr-users-request at lists.sip-router.org>wrote:
> Send sr-users mailing list submissions to
> sr-users at lists.sip-router.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> sr-users-request at lists.sip-router.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> sr-users-owner at lists.sip-router.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of sr-users digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Drouting usage (Javier Gallart)
> 2. PSTN call (michel freiha)
> 3. Re: Drouting usage (marius zbihlei)
> 4. bflag under failure_route (kamailio 1.5) (I?aki Baz Castillo)
> 5. Re: bflag under failure_route (kamailio 1.5)
> (Daniel-Constantin Mierla)
> 6. Re: bflag under failure_route (kamailio 1.5) (I?aki Baz Castillo)
> 7. Re: bflag under failure_route (kamailio 1.5)
> (Daniel-Constantin Mierla)
> 8. Re: bflag under failure_route (kamailio 1.5) (I?aki Baz Castillo)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 15:16:56 +0200
> From: Javier Gallart <jgallartm at gmail.com>
> Subject: [SR-Users] Drouting usage
> To: sr-users at lists.sip-router.org
> Message-ID:
> <AANLkTik8pWtu9uT1=mPb_zSnztej5kHzPrEVPubgzeY7 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Hello
>
> sorry if this sounds too "newbie". I'm interested in the drouting module.
> The first INVITE is correctly forwarded to the gw foudn in the drouting
> table:
> if (is_method("INVITE") && !has_totag()) {
> do_routing("0");
> record_route();
> }
> However for subsequent messages (ACK, BYE) in the dialog I don't know how
> to
> keep track of the ip resolved by the drouting logic so the messages are
> correctly forwarded to the same gw. I've made some tests using the dialog
> module with no success. Any hint?
>
> Thanks in advance
>
> Javier
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.sip-router.org/pipermail/sr-users/attachments/20101025/8c5c5a6c/attachment-0001.htm
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 16:49:24 +0300
> From: michel freiha <michofr at gmail.com>
> Subject: [SR-Users] PSTN call
> To: users at lists.kamailio.org
> Message-ID:
> <AANLkTimkdfnxTaaRb8gvKdb4hAen8EY03wO9MK6mNKPy at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Dear All,
>
> Can someone help me to connect my kamilio in order to make a PSTN call by
> rewriting host tp PSTN gateway? I changed my config in a manner to do
> that...The line is ringing but as soon as I open the line on other side the
> call will hangup...Please find the piece of code
>
> # RTPProxy control
> route[RTPPROXY] {
> #!ifdef WITH_NAT
> if (is_method("BYE")) {
> unforce_rtp_proxy();
> } else if (is_method("INVITE")){
> rewritehost("XX.XX.XX.XX");
> force_rtp_proxy();
> }
> if (!has_totag()) add_rr_param(";nat=yes");
> #!endif
> return;
> }
>
>
> Regards
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.sip-router.org/pipermail/sr-users/attachments/20101025/eeae5259/attachment-0001.htm
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 16:51:32 +0300
> From: marius zbihlei <marius.zbihlei at 1and1.ro>
> Subject: Re: [SR-Users] Drouting usage
> To: <sr-users at lists.sip-router.org>
> Message-ID: <4CC58B64.4040609 at 1and1.ro>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed"
>
> On 10/25/2010 04:16 PM, Javier Gallart wrote:
> > Hello
> >
> > sorry if this sounds too "newbie". I'm interested in the drouting
> > module. The first INVITE is correctly forwarded to the gw foudn in the
> > drouting table:
> > if (is_method("INVITE") && !has_totag()) {
> > do_routing("0");
> > record_route();
> > }
> > However for subsequent messages (ACK, BYE) in the dialog I don't know
> > how to keep track of the ip resolved by the drouting logic so the
> > messages are correctly forwarded to the same gw. I've made some tests
> > using the dialog module with no success. Any hint?
> >
> > Thanks in advance
> >
> > Javier
> Hello
>
> You might want to use loose_route() to perform loose routing (defined in
> RFC 3261) of in-dialog requests. (Loose_route also performs strict routing)
>
> if (has_totag()){
> loose_route();
> t_relay();
> exit;
> }
>
> Marius
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.sip-router.org/pipermail/sr-users/attachments/20101025/bc0d7d5d/attachment-0001.htm
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 18:25:17 +0200
> From: I?aki Baz Castillo <ibc at aliax.net>
> Subject: [SR-Users] bflag under failure_route (kamailio 1.5)
> To: SR-Users <sr-users at lists.sip-router.org>
> Message-ID:
> <AANLkTim-GAn9=VkdsfaGgQfN1Eppx+GLA5Atc0ApZP-w at mail.gmail.com<VkdsfaGgQfN1Eppx%2BGLA5Atc0ApZP-w at mail.gmail.com>
> >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> Hi, I know that handling bflags outside of branch_route is not a good
> idea. Anyhow I have a doubt:
>
> 1) In a normal route I set "setbflag(i:1)", so the bflag will be set
> for all the branches that could be generated for this incoming
> transaction. This also involves creating new branches manually under
> failure_route, am I right?
> Note: I do know that it would be much better just to use flag instead of
> bflags.
>
> 2) The outgoing transaction(s) fail so I enter into failure_route. If
> I inspect here bflag(i:1) will it be set or not? I remember that it
> will be set.
>
> 3) Then I call append_branch in failure_route, or perhaps call
> loockup("location") and I expect that all the generated branches will
> have the bflag set, am I right?
>
> Thanks a lot.
>
> --
> I?aki Baz Castillo
> <ibc at aliax.net>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 18:31:41 +0200
> From: Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [SR-Users] bflag under failure_route (kamailio 1.5)
> To: I?aki Baz Castillo <ibc at aliax.net>
> Cc: SR-Users <sr-users at lists.sip-router.org>
> Message-ID: <4CC5B0ED.5080309 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>
> Hello,
>
> On 10/25/10 6:25 PM, I?aki Baz Castillo wrote:
> > Hi, I know that handling bflags outside of branch_route is not a good
> > idea. Anyhow I have a doubt:
> >
> > 1) In a normal route I set "setbflag(i:1)"
>
> why are you using "i:1"? The parameter must be just 1.
>
> > , so the bflag will be set
> > for all the branches that could be generated for this incoming
> > transaction. This also involves creating new branches manually under
> > failure_route, am I right?
> > Note: I do know that it would be much better just to use flag instead of
> bflags.
> >
> > 2) The outgoing transaction(s) fail so I enter into failure_route. If
> > I inspect here bflag(i:1) will it be set or not? I remember that it
> > will be set.
> >
> > 3) Then I call append_branch in failure_route, or perhaps call
> > loockup("location") and I expect that all the generated branches will
> > have the bflag set, am I right?
> never used in this way, but the normal usage is per branch and when you
> do it in the main route then it is just for first branch.
>
> Cheers,
> Daniel
> > Thanks a lot.
> >
>
> --
> Daniel-Constantin Mierla
> http://www.asipto.com
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 18:35:46 +0200
> From: I?aki Baz Castillo <ibc at aliax.net>
> Subject: Re: [SR-Users] bflag under failure_route (kamailio 1.5)
> To: miconda at gmail.com
> Cc: SR-Users <sr-users at lists.sip-router.org>
> Message-ID:
> <AANLkTikYQv+bY1jTQiktgeKORB+AC6TrxJbo=jEAhJcn at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> 2010/10/25 Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda at gmail.com>:
> > why are you using "i:1"? The parameter must be just 1.
>
> Sorry, just a typo in the mail :)
>
>
> >> , so the bflag will be set
> >> for all the branches that could be generated ?for this incoming
> >> transaction. This also involves creating new branches manually under
> >> failure_route, am I right?
> >> Note: I do know that it would be much better just to use flag instead of
> >> bflags.
> >>
> >> 2) The outgoing transaction(s) fail so I enter into failure_route. If
> >> I inspect here bflag(i:1) will it be set or not? I remember that it
> >> will be set.
> >>
> >> 3) Then I call append_branch in failure_route, or perhaps call
> >> loockup("location") and I expect that all the generated branches will
> >> have the bflag set, am I right?
> >
> > never used in this way, but the normal usage is per branch and when you
> do
> > it in the main route then it is just for first branch.
>
> It's more curiosity than need. But anyhow I'm 90% sure that if you set
> a bflag in route then it will be set for all the branches generated
> during loockup(location). Not sure what happens in case of serial
> forking using append_branch() in failure_route...
>
> --
> I?aki Baz Castillo
> <ibc at aliax.net>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 21:38:52 +0200
> From: Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [SR-Users] bflag under failure_route (kamailio 1.5)
> To: I?aki Baz Castillo <ibc at aliax.net>
> Cc: SR-Users <sr-users at lists.sip-router.org>
> Message-ID: <4CC5DCCC.5010909 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>
>
>
> On 10/25/10 6:35 PM, I?aki Baz Castillo wrote:
> > 2010/10/25 Daniel-Constantin Mierla<miconda at gmail.com>:
> >> why are you using "i:1"? The parameter must be just 1.
> > Sorry, just a typo in the mail :)
> >
> >
> >>> , so the bflag will be set
> >>> for all the branches that could be generated for this incoming
> >>> transaction. This also involves creating new branches manually under
> >>> failure_route, am I right?
> >>> Note: I do know that it would be much better just to use flag instead
> of
> >>> bflags.
> >>>
> >>> 2) The outgoing transaction(s) fail so I enter into failure_route. If
> >>> I inspect here bflag(i:1) will it be set or not? I remember that it
> >>> will be set.
> >>>
> >>> 3) Then I call append_branch in failure_route, or perhaps call
> >>> loockup("location") and I expect that all the generated branches will
> >>> have the bflag set, am I right?
> >> never used in this way, but the normal usage is per branch and when you
> do
> >> it in the main route then it is just for first branch.
> > It's more curiosity than need. But anyhow I'm 90% sure that if you set
> > a bflag in route then it will be set for all the branches generated
> > during loockup(location).
>
> Looked in the code and I saw that only first branch inherits the branch
> flags from main route, the other takes only the value from location
> records.
>
> Cheers,
> Daniel
>
> > Not sure what happens in case of serial
> > forking using append_branch() in failure_route...
> >
>
> --
> Daniel-Constantin Mierla
> http://www.asipto.com
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 22:08:27 +0200
> From: I?aki Baz Castillo <ibc at aliax.net>
> Subject: Re: [SR-Users] bflag under failure_route (kamailio 1.5)
> To: Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda at gmail.com>
> Cc: SR-Users <sr-users at lists.sip-router.org>
> Message-ID:
> <AANLkTi=iuYLwaignfOcKGsgFnE57gnn45DgRrzSZogUW at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> 2010/10/25 Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda at gmail.com>:
> > Looked in the code and I saw that only first branch inherits the branch
> > flags from main route, the other takes only the value from location
> records.
>
> Ok, so better to be careful with this and use blfag just under branch_route
> :)
>
> PS: Perhaps would it make sense a constrain so setbflag(),
> isbflagset() and resetbflag() cannot be used in route and
> failure_route anymore?
>
> --
> I?aki Baz Castillo
> <ibc at aliax.net>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> sr-users mailing list
> sr-users at lists.sip-router.org
> http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
>
>
> End of sr-users Digest, Vol 65, Issue 99
> ****************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sip-router.org/pipermail/sr-users/attachments/20101026/2ad56a17/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the sr-users
mailing list