13 Jan
2006
13 Jan
'06
12:43 p.m.
On 01/12/06 20:20, Andreas Granig wrote:
Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
I am thinking to a scenario where you peer your network to another ones.
So you have a connection like:
[Your proxy] <---> [Load balancer] <---> [Foreign proxy]
When the calls come from the foreign proxy, the RR added by Foreign
proxy is not controllable, so in the case of BYE you may get in
difficulties to make the decision to remove or not the Route header. You
may get a solutions based on IP of the Foreign proxies, but it may get
ugly at a moment.
Maybe is better to have: Path:
<sip:own-address;lr;received=received-address> for the server in
front of nat (load balancer). When loose_route() process the header
it can take the received parameter and use it as dst_uri if no other
Route header is present.
Makes sense and seems to be a cleaner solution, yes.
Otherwise I see troubles to process a Route
header which does not
have server's address -- think about peering with other SIP networks
where you cannot control what the server will add as parameters to
Record-Route.
I don't really get your point. In my understanding, this particular
Route header, inserted at the proxy, never leaves the own network
because it will be removed at the next hop (the load balancer in this
case).
But I like the idea using the received-param much better anyhow...
So I'd like to port my Path-patch posted on the ser list in October
(http://mail.iptel.org/pipermail/serdev/2005-October/005847.html) to
openser. There are just one problem: as far as I've read, you're
working on a cacheless solution for usrloc, so there might be quite
some code conflicts if I start off now. So when do you think will your
changes be in CVS?
If you can do the patch in about one week, then it is fine. We
are not
planning any changes next week to registrar/usrloc, so we can work
afterwards on the version which includes your patch.
Cheers,
Daniel
Andy