18 Dec
2009
18 Dec
'09
8:16 a.m.
On 12/18/09 12:27 PM, Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul wrote:
On Dec 17, 2009 at 15:52, Juha
Heinanen<jh(a)tutpro.com> wrote:
Isn't the RFC requiring to send cancel and negative ack to the same
destination as INVITE?
Cheers,
Daniel
even if i call fix_nated_contact() when sr
receives 200 ok to locally
generated invite, it is still trying to send the ack to local address of
the ua. looks like modifications done in reply_route to 200 ok are not
visible to sr when it generates the ack.
andrei, can you confirm this? are there any means to solve this
problem?
Yes, onreply_route modifications are not taken into account by tm.
In fact final responses are processed by tm _before_ executing the
onreply_route. The onreply_route changes will only appear in the
forwarded reply.
Right now the only way to solve this without code changes is to add
another hop (e.g. route the message once through localhost or another
proxy and fix the contact there).
With coding changes I see 2 possible workarounds:
1. add a param. for using the local INVITE dst. when generating the ACK
(instead of obeying the rfc) (easy)
2. add a t_reply_fake_contact() command for changing
the contact seen by
tm and maybe modifiying fix_nated_contact() to use it.
Andrei
_______________________________________________
sr-dev mailing list
sr-dev(a)lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
* http://www.asipto.com/