20 Jul
2006
20 Jul
'06
9:14 p.m.
Hi,
Evan Borgström wrote:
Why would you want to prevent it? 1XX class messages
are all
provisional, do not solicit a response and are never forwarded upstream
so only the previous hop will get multiple 100 messages which will
effectively limit any chance of the upstream hop re-transmitting the
original message.
Take the following example; A user sends their initial INVITE, you
sl_send_reply 100 and then check your proxy_authorize which returns a
407 and challenges the user. The user sends the second invite with
credentials you sl_send_reply 100 and then check your proxy_authorize
again and say, for instance, your DB server is now under heavy load (a
cronjob runs, etc) and takes longer then 1s to respond, since you
haven't called t_relay yet which generates the second 100 message your
initial 100 message would still stop the user from re-transmitting the
INVITE while proxy_authorize is waiting for the DB.
The question is not whether sl replying is good or not - it for sure is.
The question is how to be 100% conformant.
However, imho, this misalignment is completely negligible, as if you
make abstraction of the possible different reason phrase, the two
messages will be identical - this duplicating can be done by some lower
layered network entity, so, from the uac's point of view, the 2 100s
should not be a problem.
However, adding a config for tm not to take care of the 100 might be the
cherry on the cake.
WL.
ps. Imo, this is one of ser/openser's problems: one script function can
actually take some more (more or less documented) "atomic" actions than
its name states (even in cases where otherwise could be done, without a
performance or complexity impact), which, from a strictly programming
point of view is completely wrong.
-Evan
T.R. Missner wrote:
You have the question exactly correct
Now - how can I do this?
-----Original Message-----
From: users-bounces(a)openser.org [mailto:users-bounces@openser.org] On
Behalf Of Weiter Leiter
Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2006 1:31 PM
To: Norman Brandinger
Cc: users
Subject: Re: [Users] provisional response management ( 100 Trying )
Hi,
Norman Brandinger wrote:
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
Users(a)openser.org
http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
At the top of our ROUTE_INVITE, we have:
#---------------------------------------------------------------------
- # Let the UA know we are working on their request - # they
shouldn't send retransmissions
#---------------------------------------------------------------------
-
sl_send_reply("100", "Trying");
This seems to work and it was adapted from code used during REGISTER
processing.
If I got Missner's problem right, he wants to prevent sending multiple
100 replies back to the uac.
The rfc says - Page 109, paragraph 5 - that "MUST be forwarded
immediately [...] Any provisional response other than 100 (Trying)" and
later, in same paragraph that "A stateful proxy MUST NOT immediately
forward any other [= 101<=x<=299] responses". Now, it's true that in
this case the proxy would not literally forward a 100 reply back, but
the uac would still see 2x100.
Now, if he does SL reply at the beginning, the tm module will, again,
send a 100 on his own, before relaying.
The question is how to prevent this, if I got it right...
WL.
Regards,
Norm
Klaus Darilion wrote:
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
Users(a)openser.org
http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
Users(a)openser.org
http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
AFAI remember there was function t_relay_no_ack
or similar. Take a
lookat the README from TM module.
regards
klaus
T.R. Missner wrote:
> Hello,
>
>
>
> I want to send an immediate 100 trying message when an Invite is
> received, then I do a DB lookup, then I rewrite the RURI and forward
>
> the message using t_relay.
>
> Since I have already sent a 100 trying manually I'd like to short
> circuit the 100 t_relay sends so multiple 100 trying messages aren't
>
> sent.
>
> Does anyone know of a way to do this?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> T.R.
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Users mailing list
> Users(a)openser.org
> http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
Users(a)openser.org
http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
Users(a)openser.org
http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users