Is there a disadvantage of this function vs add_contact_alias()? If not, maybe we should always use set_contact_alias() instead of add_contact_alias(). klaus On 04.10.2013 10:56, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote: > Module: sip-router > Branch: master > Commit: 58659b0cabb623c6420c186755c968b4550ff09c > URL: > http://git.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi/sip-router/?a=commit;h=58659b0… > > Author: Daniel-Constantin Mierla &lt;miconda(a)gmail.com&gt; > Committer: Daniel-Constantin Mierla &lt;miconda(a)gmail.com&gt; > Date: Thu Oct 3 09:16:38 2013 +0200 > > nathelper: add_contact_alias() new function for adding alias > parameter to contact uri > > - similar to add_contact_alias(), but this works like > fix_nated_contact(), in the way that new contact uri is immediately > visible to other modules (e.g., dialog, presence) > > --- > > modules/nathelper/nathelper.c | 70 > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 files changed, 70 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/modules/nathelper/nathelper.c > b/modules/nathelper/nathelper.c > index 7cccdc1..6f0d28e 100644 > --- a/modules/nathelper/nathelper.c > +++ b/modules/nathelper/nathelper.c > @@ -288,6 +288,7 @@ static int nat_uac_test_f(struct sip_msg* msg, > char* str1, char* str2); > static int fix_nated_contact_f(struct sip_msg *, char *, char *); > static int add_contact_alias_0_f(struct sip_msg *, char *, char *); > static int add_contact_alias_3_f(struct sip_msg *, char *, char *, > char *); > +static int set_contact_alias_f(struct sip_msg* msg, char* str1, > char* str2); > static int handle_ruri_alias_f(struct sip_msg *, char *, char *); > static int pv_get_rr_count_f(struct sip_msg *, pv_param_t *, > pv_value_t *); > static int pv_get_rr_top_count_f(struct sip_msg *, pv_param_t *, > pv_value_t *); > @@ -368,6 +369,9 @@ static cmd_export_t cmds[] = { > REQUEST_ROUTE|ONREPLY_ROUTE|BRANCH_ROUTE|LOCAL_ROUTE}, > {"add_contact_alias", (cmd_function)add_contact_alias_3_f, 3, > fixup_add_contact_alias, 0, > + REQUEST_ROUTE|ONREPLY_ROUTE|BRANCH_ROUTE|FAILURE_ROUTE}, > + {"set_contact_alias", (cmd_function)set_contact_alias_f, 0, > + 0, 0, > REQUEST_ROUTE|ONREPLY_ROUTE|BRANCH_ROUTE|LOCAL_ROUTE}, > {"handle_ruri_alias", (cmd_function)handle_ruri_alias_f, 0, > 0, 0, > @@ -846,6 +850,72 @@ fix_nated_contact_f(struct sip_msg* msg, char* > str1, char* str2) > return 1; > } > > +/* > + * Replaces ip:port pair in the Contact: field with the source address > + * of the packet. > + */ > +static int > +set_contact_alias_f(struct sip_msg* msg, char* str1, char* str2) > +{ > + char nbuf[MAX_URI_SIZE]; > + str nuri; > + int br; > + > + int offset, len; > + char *buf; > + contact_t *c; > + struct lump *anchor; > + struct sip_uri uri; > + > + nuri.s = nbuf; > + nuri.len = MAX_URI_SIZE; > + if (get_contact_uri(msg, &uri, &c) == -1) > + return -1; > + if ((c->uri.s < msg->buf) || (c->uri.s > (msg->buf + msg->len))) { > + LM_ERR("you can't update contact twice, check your config!\n"); > + return -1; > + } > + > + if(uri_add_rcv_alias(msg, &c->uri, &nuri)<0) { > + LM_DBG("cannot add the alias parameter\n"); > + return -1; > + } > + > + br = 1; > + if(c->uri.s[-1]=='<') > + br = 0; > + > + > + len = nuri.len + 2*br; > + buf = pkg_malloc(len + 1); > + if (buf == NULL) { > + LM_ERR("out of pkg memory\n"); > + return -1; > + } > + if(br==1) { > + buf[0] = '<'; > + strncpy(buf+1, nuri.s, nuri.len); > + buf[len-1] = '>'; > + } else { > + strncpy(buf, nuri.s, nuri.len); > + } > + buf[len] = '\0'; > + > + offset = c->uri.s - msg->buf; > + anchor = del_lump(msg, offset, c->uri.len, HDR_CONTACT_T); > + if (anchor == 0) > + return -1; > + > + if (insert_new_lump_after(anchor, buf, len, HDR_CONTACT_T) == 0) { > + pkg_free(buf); > + return -1; > + } > + c->uri.s = buf; > + c->uri.len = len; > + > + return 1; > +} > + > > #define SALIAS ";alias=" > #define SALIAS_LEN (sizeof(SALIAS) - 1) > > > _______________________________________________ > sr-dev mailing list > sr-dev(a)lists.sip-router.org > http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev >