[SR-Users] Registrar path support on lookup

[Ben Langfeld]

Thanks Daniel. Config can be found here:
https://gist.github.com/benlangfeld/1b61f41c31129e8f2db3

INVITEs as provided (with a Route with two comma-separated elements) get
routed via the Contact header (instead of the second Route element).

When I use loose_route() on the INVITE, it goes into a loop in the edge
proxy (https://gist.github.com/benlangfeld/99af9045e70a9bb4eeed), even
though the IP it selects to route to (.14) is not the same server.

Ben

On 4 December 2014 at 12:16, Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda at gmail.com>
wrote:

>  You should put the config somewhere for review. Note that default
> kamailio.cfg ignores Route headers for initial requests. You have to handle
> initial requests with loose_route().
>
> Cheers,
> Daniel
>
>
> On 04/12/14 13:35, Ben Langfeld wrote:
>
> In that case the issue would have to be with the Kamailio-based edge proxy
> which is not routing based on the second Route in the list. Is that a known
> issue? I can provide more details if you think I'm on the right track.
>
> On 4 December 2014 at 10:09, Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>  Hello,
>>
>> having more record-route addresses in the same header, separated by
>> comma, it is valid. Other headers (Via, Record-Route, Supported, Required
>> ...) can have same format, it is a matter of UAC how it builds them, each
>> with a header name or all under same header name.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Daniel
>>
>>
>> On 04/12/14 12:24, Ben Langfeld wrote:
>>
>>  I'm facing a problem which I believe may be a bug in the registrar
>> module's lookup. When a registration comes with multiple Path headers,
>> these are recorded in the location table as comma separated. When the
>> lookup is performed and these are used to construct the Route header(s) on
>> an INVITE, this comma-separated list is not split into multiple Route
>> headers, but instead included verbatim in a single header.
>>
>>  Here comes my theory for how this breaks my scenario:
>>
>>  When the INVITE then reaches the first hop (first Path header, also
>> Kamailio), relay() sees that the Route header is itself and/or sees that
>> there is only one Route header.
>>
>>  The observed result is that the first hop then sends the INVITE
>> directly to the Contact, instead of via the second hop.
>>
>>  An example of the situation I'm facing is shown in
>> https://gist.github.com/benlangfeld/b374a0ce0bdb6bdc35e7.
>>
>>  Is there a particular reason the combined path is not split on lookup?
>> Is this a bug / oversight? Am I crazy?
>>
>>  Thanks!
>> Ben
>>
>>
>>  _______________________________________________
>> SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing listsr-users at lists.sip-router.orghttp://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
>>
>>
>> --
>> Daniel-Constantin Mierlahttp://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list
>> sr-users at lists.sip-router.org
>> http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
>>
>>
>
> --
> Daniel-Constantin Mierlahttp://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sip-router.org/pipermail/sr-users/attachments/20141204/b7dd67c8/attachment.html>