5 Oct
2009
5 Oct
'09
8:57 a.m.
Bugs item #2822344, was opened at 2009-07-16 12:06
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by miconda
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=743020&aid=282234…
Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread,
including the initial issue submission, for this request,
not just the latest update.
Category: None
Group: ver 1.4.x
Status: Open
Resolution: None
Priority: 5
Private: No
Submitted By: Alex Hermann (axlh)
Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody)
Summary: Branch route has wrong ruri or missing headers
Initial Comment:
The scenario:
In branch route, I rewrite the ruri and add an additional header. When the destination
fails and DNS-based failover takes place, the branch route is called again. For this
second branch, the ruri is not the same as the ruri at t_relay time. Also the extra header
is missing.
So this bug could be either:
- The ruri and rest of variables/packet for each branch should be the same as the ruri at
t_relay time
or
- The header added in the first branch route should also be present for the second branch
(in the case of DNS-based failover)
I would either expect the ruri and all other variables and headers to be exactly the same
as at t_relay time for each branch, or (for DNS-based failover ONLY) the packet sent to a
failover destination to be exactly the same as the first branch (including any added
headers / from replacement, etc.) Not a mix of both.
Before t_relay:
$rU = "*1234567890"
t_relay("0x03");
my branch route:
xlog("L_NOTICE", "Branch: <$ru> via <$du>\n");
if (is_method("INVITE") and $(rU{s.substr,0,3}) == "*12") {
strip(3);
append_hf("X-Test: 12\r\n");
}
The log:
Jul 15 09:14:38 Branch: <sip:*1234567890@test.domain;transport=udp> via
<<null>>
Jul 15 09:14:38 Reply Status: 503 Service Unavailable
Jul 15 09:14:38 Branch: <sip:234567890@test.domain;transport=udp> via
<<null>>
Jul 15 09:14:38 Reply Status: 100 Trying
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Daniel-Constantin Mierla (miconda)
Date: 2009-10-05 09:57
Message:
Have you said on the mailing list that calling t_on_branch() from
branch_route gets what you need?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Alex Hermann (axlh)
Date: 2009-09-04 18:03
Message:
And when there is no response at all from th destination, resulting in a
local generated 408, the behaviour is even different. Then branch route
isn't called at all, but the packet headed for the failover host is
different from the original as it misses any headers added in the branch
route.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=743020&aid=282234…