Hi Samuel,
Of course, I didn't think about the presence send stuff :-)
Yes, I agree, path should be in SER (not core, but a module). And it should be fairly simple to implement, it's just that nobody has stepped up and offered to do it... So, if you feel like picking up the old path module made by Andreas and make a shot at it, feel fre :-) I believe Jan has some input on how to do it, so you can post a suggestion for how to implement to serdev.
g-)

samuel wrote:
Presence stuff uses tm callbacks to send messages and does not follow the config file (that's what Vaclav was saying) and it's therefore impossible to use this approach for presence.
Moreover, I would definetely prefer integrating Path and Service-Route in the SER core and not in the routing script....

samuel.

2007/8/15, Greger V. Teigre <greger@teigre.com>:
You can actually use the select and avps to implement Path header functionality in ser.cfg by storing path info in db. I have never done it, but a how-to for iptel.org faqs would be much appreciated ;-)
g-)


Vaclav Kubart wrote: 
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


  


_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
Serusers@lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers