On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 10:08 PM,
<sr-users-request@lists.sip-router.org> wrote:
Send sr-users mailing list submissions to
sr-users@lists.sip-router.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
sr-users-request@lists.sip-router.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
sr-users-owner@lists.sip-router.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of sr-users digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Drouting usage (Javier Gallart)
2. PSTN call (michel freiha)
3. Re: Drouting usage (marius zbihlei)
4. bflag under failure_route (kamailio 1.5) (I?aki Baz Castillo)
5. Re: bflag under failure_route (kamailio 1.5)
(Daniel-Constantin Mierla)
6. Re: bflag under failure_route (kamailio 1.5) (I?aki Baz Castillo)
7. Re: bflag under failure_route (kamailio 1.5)
(Daniel-Constantin Mierla)
8. Re: bflag under failure_route (kamailio 1.5) (I?aki Baz Castillo)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 15:16:56 +0200
From: Javier Gallart <jgallartm@gmail.com>
Subject: [SR-Users] Drouting usage
To: sr-users@lists.sip-router.org
Message-ID:
<AANLkTik8pWtu9uT1=mPb_zSnztej5kHzPrEVPubgzeY7@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Hello
sorry if this sounds too "newbie". I'm interested in the drouting module.
The first INVITE is correctly forwarded to the gw foudn in the drouting
table:
if (is_method("INVITE") && !has_totag()) {
do_routing("0");
record_route();
}
However for subsequent messages (ACK, BYE) in the dialog I don't know how to
keep track of the ip resolved by the drouting logic so the messages are
correctly forwarded to the same gw. I've made some tests using the dialog
module with no success. Any hint?
Thanks in advance
Javier
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sip-router.org/pipermail/sr-users/attachments/20101025/8c5c5a6c/attachment-0001.htm>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 16:49:24 +0300
From: michel freiha <michofr@gmail.com>
Subject: [SR-Users] PSTN call
To: users@lists.kamailio.org
Message-ID:
<AANLkTimkdfnxTaaRb8gvKdb4hAen8EY03wO9MK6mNKPy@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Dear All,
Can someone help me to connect my kamilio in order to make a PSTN call by
rewriting host tp PSTN gateway? I changed my config in a manner to do
that...The line is ringing but as soon as I open the line on other side the
call will hangup...Please find the piece of code
# RTPProxy control
route[RTPPROXY] {
#!ifdef WITH_NAT
if (is_method("BYE")) {
unforce_rtp_proxy();
} else if (is_method("INVITE")){
rewritehost("XX.XX.XX.XX");
force_rtp_proxy();
}
if (!has_totag()) add_rr_param(";nat=yes");
#!endif
return;
}
Regards
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sip-router.org/pipermail/sr-users/attachments/20101025/eeae5259/attachment-0001.htm>
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 16:51:32 +0300
From: marius zbihlei <marius.zbihlei@1and1.ro>
Subject: Re: [SR-Users] Drouting usage
To: <sr-users@lists.sip-router.org>
Message-ID: <4CC58B64.4040609@1and1.ro>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed"
On 10/25/2010 04:16 PM, Javier Gallart wrote:
> Hello
>
> sorry if this sounds too "newbie". I'm interested in the drouting
> module. The first INVITE is correctly forwarded to the gw foudn in the
> drouting table:
> if (is_method("INVITE") && !has_totag()) {
> do_routing("0");
> record_route();
> }
> However for subsequent messages (ACK, BYE) in the dialog I don't know
> how to keep track of the ip resolved by the drouting logic so the
> messages are correctly forwarded to the same gw. I've made some tests
> using the dialog module with no success. Any hint?
>
> Thanks in advance
>
> Javier
Hello
You might want to use loose_route() to perform loose routing (defined in
RFC 3261) of in-dialog requests. (Loose_route also performs strict routing)
if (has_totag()){
loose_route();
t_relay();
exit;
}
Marius
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sip-router.org/pipermail/sr-users/attachments/20101025/bc0d7d5d/attachment-0001.htm>
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 18:25:17 +0200
From: I?aki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>
Subject: [SR-Users] bflag under failure_route (kamailio 1.5)
To: SR-Users <sr-users@lists.sip-router.org>
Message-ID:
<AANLkTim-GAn9=VkdsfaGgQfN1Eppx+GLA5Atc0ApZP-w@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Hi, I know that handling bflags outside of branch_route is not a good
idea. Anyhow I have a doubt:
1) In a normal route I set "setbflag(i:1)", so the bflag will be set
for all the branches that could be generated for this incoming
transaction. This also involves creating new branches manually under
failure_route, am I right?
Note: I do know that it would be much better just to use flag instead of bflags.
2) The outgoing transaction(s) fail so I enter into failure_route. If
I inspect here bflag(i:1) will it be set or not? I remember that it
will be set.
3) Then I call append_branch in failure_route, or perhaps call
loockup("location") and I expect that all the generated branches will
have the bflag set, am I right?
Thanks a lot.
--
I?aki Baz Castillo
<ibc@aliax.net>
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 18:31:41 +0200
From: Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [SR-Users] bflag under failure_route (kamailio 1.5)
To: I?aki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>
Cc: SR-Users <sr-users@lists.sip-router.org>
Message-ID: <4CC5B0ED.5080309@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Hello,
On 10/25/10 6:25 PM, I?aki Baz Castillo wrote:
> Hi, I know that handling bflags outside of branch_route is not a good
> idea. Anyhow I have a doubt:
>
> 1) In a normal route I set "setbflag(i:1)"
why are you using "i:1"? The parameter must be just 1.
> , so the bflag will be set
> for all the branches that could be generated for this incoming
> transaction. This also involves creating new branches manually under
> failure_route, am I right?
> Note: I do know that it would be much better just to use flag instead of bflags.
>
> 2) The outgoing transaction(s) fail so I enter into failure_route. If
> I inspect here bflag(i:1) will it be set or not? I remember that it
> will be set.
>
> 3) Then I call append_branch in failure_route, or perhaps call
> loockup("location") and I expect that all the generated branches will
> have the bflag set, am I right?
never used in this way, but the normal usage is per branch and when you
do it in the main route then it is just for first branch.
Cheers,
Daniel
> Thanks a lot.
>
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
http://www.asipto.com
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 18:35:46 +0200
From: I?aki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>
Subject: Re: [SR-Users] bflag under failure_route (kamailio 1.5)
To: miconda@gmail.com
Cc: SR-Users <sr-users@lists.sip-router.org>
Message-ID:
<AANLkTikYQv+bY1jTQiktgeKORB+AC6TrxJbo=jEAhJcn@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
2010/10/25 Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda@gmail.com>:
> why are you using "i:1"? The parameter must be just 1.
Sorry, just a typo in the mail :)
>> , so the bflag will be set
>> for all the branches that could be generated ?for this incoming
>> transaction. This also involves creating new branches manually under
>> failure_route, am I right?
>> Note: I do know that it would be much better just to use flag instead of
>> bflags.
>>
>> 2) The outgoing transaction(s) fail so I enter into failure_route. If
>> I inspect here bflag(i:1) will it be set or not? I remember that it
>> will be set.
>>
>> 3) Then I call append_branch in failure_route, or perhaps call
>> loockup("location") and I expect that all the generated branches will
>> have the bflag set, am I right?
>
> never used in this way, but the normal usage is per branch and when you do
> it in the main route then it is just for first branch.
It's more curiosity than need. But anyhow I'm 90% sure that if you set
a bflag in route then it will be set for all the branches generated
during loockup(location). Not sure what happens in case of serial
forking using append_branch() in failure_route...
--
I?aki Baz Castillo
<ibc@aliax.net>
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 21:38:52 +0200
From: Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [SR-Users] bflag under failure_route (kamailio 1.5)
To: I?aki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>
Cc: SR-Users <sr-users@lists.sip-router.org>
Message-ID: <4CC5DCCC.5010909@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
On 10/25/10 6:35 PM, I?aki Baz Castillo wrote:
> 2010/10/25 Daniel-Constantin Mierla<miconda@gmail.com>:
>> why are you using "i:1"? The parameter must be just 1.
> Sorry, just a typo in the mail :)
>
>
>>> , so the bflag will be set
>>> for all the branches that could be generated for this incoming
>>> transaction. This also involves creating new branches manually under
>>> failure_route, am I right?
>>> Note: I do know that it would be much better just to use flag instead of
>>> bflags.
>>>
>>> 2) The outgoing transaction(s) fail so I enter into failure_route. If
>>> I inspect here bflag(i:1) will it be set or not? I remember that it
>>> will be set.
>>>
>>> 3) Then I call append_branch in failure_route, or perhaps call
>>> loockup("location") and I expect that all the generated branches will
>>> have the bflag set, am I right?
>> never used in this way, but the normal usage is per branch and when you do
>> it in the main route then it is just for first branch.
> It's more curiosity than need. But anyhow I'm 90% sure that if you set
> a bflag in route then it will be set for all the branches generated
> during loockup(location).
Looked in the code and I saw that only first branch inherits the branch
flags from main route, the other takes only the value from location records.
Cheers,
Daniel
> Not sure what happens in case of serial
> forking using append_branch() in failure_route...
>
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
http://www.asipto.com
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 22:08:27 +0200
From: I?aki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>
Subject: Re: [SR-Users] bflag under failure_route (kamailio 1.5)
To: Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda@gmail.com>
Cc: SR-Users <sr-users@lists.sip-router.org>
Message-ID:
<AANLkTi=iuYLwaignfOcKGsgFnE57gnn45DgRrzSZogUW@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
2010/10/25 Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda@gmail.com>:
> Looked in the code and I saw that only first branch inherits the branch
> flags from main route, the other takes only the value from location records.
Ok, so better to be careful with this and use blfag just under branch_route :)
PS: Perhaps would it make sense a constrain so setbflag(),
isbflagset() and resetbflag() cannot be used in route and
failure_route anymore?
--
I?aki Baz Castillo
<ibc@aliax.net>
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
sr-users mailing list
sr-users@lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
End of sr-users Digest, Vol 65, Issue 99
****************************************