On Po, srp 06, 2007 at 11:41:46 +0200, samuel wrote:
I'll give a try to this parameter...I didn't pay enough attention to the
serdev mail....
Maybe a reasonable approach would be to be able to define a presence
outbound proxy (as it's done in presence_b2b) and you can set up "easily" a
separate presence proxy or route the messages to yourself so you can process
it again in your config script. This would, however, break just a little bit
3261 routing algorithm....easy but I don't like it...
Good idea. :-) I like it much more than calling script routes from presence
modules. And it is much easier to implement it.
But similar effect could be probably got by forwarding the SUBSCRIBE
request once more to itself if it will be needed to process the NOTIFYs
by nathelper. (Adds a step to routes where can be the "deNATification"
done.)
Thinking loud...what about Path or Service-Route headers compatibility in
presence modules?? Setting up these headers would allow flexible routing
while keeping compliancy to standards...Can this be achieved with
2.0release and select framework??
Sorry, we don't support these in presence modules...
Vaclav
Regards,
Samuel.
2007/8/6, Vaclav Kubart <vaclav.kubart@iptel.org>:
Yes, you are right.
But Maxim has introduced new module parameter by which you can say, that
NOTIFY is not target refresh request and thus NOTIFY responses won't
refresh the target.
From my point of view is this only temporary hack (because NOTIFY was in
some discussions aggreed to be target refresh). Better solution is
probably to let the NOTIFY go through config script and process it and
its responses by nathelper.
Vaclav
On Po, srp 06, 2007 at 10:24:17 +0200, samuel wrote:
mmmm
coming back to the discussion....the missing OK Contact mangle happened
with
a separated prosence proxy...
I was wondering...In the case of a single SIP server
(proxy,registrar,presence,...) when the "presence" part sends the NOTIFY
to
a natted UA and this latter one replies with the 200OK, the Contact
would
contain the internal IP and since this NOTIFY is not handled by the SER
route config file , it can not be managed by nathelper|mediaproxy
options.
This would cause a modification in the target of the dialog to the
internal
IP (following RFC 3261) and the presence dialog would be useless because
no
notifications would work....am I right?
Thanks,
Samuel.
2007/8/3, samuel <samu60@gmail.com>
:
Ok.
I found out the "problem", there was a missing NAT handling of the
responses, and the 200 OK response updated the target dialog with a
non-routable IP. That's why further messages had the wronf Req-URI.
Thanks for your pointers,
sam.
2007/8/2, Vaclav Kubart <vaclav.kubart@iptel.org>:
Hi Samuel,
Maxim Sobolev was fighting with NAT and presence some time ago.
I was trying to allow calling script route block when sending NOTIFY
to
allow its modifications, but I had not enough time to get results.
The NOTIFY should be constructed according RFC 3261; the request URI
should be the value from Contact of the SUBSCRIBE request (if only
loose
routers in routes appear).
To, From, Via and routes should follow RFC 3261 too.
Contact header value is the address at which the SUBSCRIBE request
arrives to the server (according examples in RFC 3856, this is
controversial but possible).
Modifying of async_auth_queries should have no influence on sent
NOTIFYs. If does, it is probably a bug.
All headers you mentioned are derived from dialog initiating
SUBSCRIBE
request as RFC says.
Vaclav
On Čt, srp 02, 2007 at 12:05:02 +0200, samuel wrote:
Hi all!!!
I'm experiencing quite difficulties setting up a dedicated (and
separated)
presence server with NATted end-points and the dstblacklist
feature.
I'd like to get some info about the construction of the most
important
headers (Req-URI,Contact,To,From,Via,Routr) for the different
NOTIFY
modalities depending on the state of the subscription.
Setting up async_auth_queries I've seen the pending and the active
NOTIFY
have different Req-URI and the second one is blocked by the NAT
router.
Further mid-dialog NOTIFYs providing changes in the presence
status
has also
different headers...
My main concern is whether the info for constructing the routing
headers is
taken from location table, from watcherinfo.dialog table, or from
the
incoming message...I know I could follow the code but an
explanation
would
provide a really helpfull overview and later checking the code
will be
much
simpler.
Thanks in advance,
Samuel.
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
Serusers@lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
Serusers@lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
Serusers@lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
Serusers@lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers