22 Jan
2004
22 Jan
'04
12:28 p.m.
Hi Ulrich,
append_hf() appends header to the current processed request and it will
not be reflected on the replies; only in the forwarded request.
If you want to add something to the reply, use append_to_reply()
function. All changes introduced by this function will be reflected only
on all replies for the current request.
Regards,
Bogdan
Ulrich Abend wrote:
Hi,
could someone please give a statement on this:
If you use append_hf before a sl_send_reply (code 302), the appended HF is not
included in the message. Is this behaviour intented or is it a bug?
Thanks,
Uli.
---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Subject: Re: Sorry to bother you
Date: Wednesday 21 January 2004 16:47
From: Marcello Lupo
To: Ulrich Abend
Hio Ulrich,
thank you for the answer.
YEs you get the problem.
For the original header field i was making a mistake, it only do not append
addedd field (CC-Diversion) in this case.
This is the answer of the SER with the Moved Temporarly:
***********************************************+
U 194.244.164.13:5060 -> 194.244.164.14:5060
SIP/2.0 302 Moved Temporarily..Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 194.244.164.14:5060..From:
"anonymous" ;tag=9B2BDCC
8-1BD2..To:
;tag=da45cd22c5a2c167d6e0afbf7b99da4a.4b46..Ca
ll-ID: 62E20996-453F11D6-9D4FFB
9A-B058E7F8@194.244.164.14..CSeq: 101 INVITE..Contact:
sip:390457156862@194.244.164.14:5060..Server: Sip EXpress router
(0.8.11 (i386/linux))..Content-Length: 0..Warning: 392 194.244.164.13:5060
"Noisy feedback tells: pid=27841 req_src_ip=
194.244.164.14 req_src_port=50410 in_uri=sip:0350545048@194.244.164.13:5060
out_uri=sip:390457156862@194.244.164.14:5060
via_cnt==1"....
*************************************************
YEs the CC-Diversion field is not appended even if i specify it in the
configuration with append_urihf or append_hf .
I uset this command syntax:
append_hf("CC-Diversion:;reason=u
nconditional\r\n");
When i use it in a new call it is appended, but with the sl_send_reply it is
not.
Thanks,
Bye,
MArcello
On Wednesday 21 January 2004 16:09, you wrote:
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
Hi Marcello,
On Tuesday 20 January 2004 22:13, Marcello Lupo wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
Hi Ulrich,
i hope you remember me... Marcello from Italy.
Of course, I remember ;-)
today i wrote an e-mail on the mailing list but
don't received any
answer.
You will receive an answer for shure, but sometimes it may take a little.
A short look into the sources showed me, that the sl_send_reply function
_should_ include the original header fields for any code between 300 and
400. From your mail I understand it does not, right?
From your mail in serusers I understand that you only have the problem
left, that the CC-diversion field is not present, even if you specify
append-HF in the script?
If that is the problem, you probably have to add the required functionality
in the sl module. Maybe this is also a bug. (~ line 175 in
modules/sl/sl_funcs.c)
Please send your problem again, if I misunderstood you, I will take a
closer look at it tomorrow.
Uli.
>I'm crushing my head to find out a way to let SER to answer to a call
>with a 302 Moved temporarly and the request appended to it with the
>addendum of the CC-Diversion field so our gateway (cisco 3725) can
>correctly take the CC-Diversion field and put the number in the
>Redirecting Number in the ISDN setup.
>I tried to do it on a normal call but seems that the cisco ignore teh
>CC-DIversion field.
>From the documentatio i read it take in consideration the CC-Diversion
>only if it receive a 3xx answer.
>I tried to use the sl_send_reply function but it answer to cisco without
>appending the original request and any field i specify with append_hf or
>append_urihf.
>Can you help me?
>Thanks a lot,
>Bye,
>MArcello
>
>