2 Mar
2007
2 Mar
'07
5:38 p.m.
Hi Andy,
the patch was accepted, but if no dialog is matched, NULL value is
returned by related pseudo vars. So try:
f($DLG_status == NULL && method!="BYE" ){}
regards,
bogdan
Andy Pyles wrote:
HI Michel,
Well here's what I'm doing:
if ( loose_route() {
if($DLG_status == 0 && method!="BYE" ){ *** assuming latest patch
accepted
xlog("L_INFO", "broken ua, dropping packet\n");
exit();
}
}
This isn't the most elegant solution, but in my case works ok.
Basically Lets say the UAC is broken. The first opportunity to tell it
is "broken" is when it sends an ACK to the 200 OK.
At this point, it would be very nice to have an option to send "BYE",
but as this functionality isn't there yet, we just reject the ACK, and
eventually the broken UAC will send a bye.
There may be other corner cases as well, but you get the general idea.
Andy
On 2/26/07, Michel Bensoussan <michel(a)extricom.com> wrote:
Hi
"I think the best approach is to force the UAC vendors to align to the
SIP specifications."
Well..... Good luck.
I don't know why but I think if I call and tell them "get back all you
products and upgrade them to align to the SIP specification" they won't
listen to me. But may be I'm wrong.
Any way. I have to deal with it. Do you have some suggestions? What is
the best dialog module version to start with?
I'm not familiar with SIP but I understand that the "To" header won't
change during a session. Is that right? I'm not sure the "CallID" will
be them same in case of re-INVITE.
So I can save the "To" header in the dialog table and check it if the
rm_param is not found.
I'm not sure how to do this.
Andy, If you have some suggestions too...
Regards,
Michel.
Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote:
Hi Michael,
as you give you the same answer as to Andy :) :
"To be honest I'm not fan of complicating my life just to support
broken stuff :)....doing dialog matching in traditional way (without
using RR stuff) is very costly and since complete, un-altered RR
mirroring is mandatory by RFC3261, I see no point of doing it
different. "
I think the best approach is to force the UAC vendors to align to the
SIP specifications.
regards,
bogdan
Michel Bensoussan wrote:
Hi Bogdan
I'm agree with you, but we cannot control the UAS devices so we have
to handle the case it doesn't correctly mirror the RR header. Can we
base the dialog states on From and To headers? or Callid? I
understand the the rr_param is used for fast dialog matching (dialog
README). Checking dialog matching with headers (From, To, ...),
will consequently slowing the transaction?
Regards,
Michel.
Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote:
> Hi Michel,
>
> looking at the net capture, it seams that the UAS device
> (User-Agent: WLAN660-S VoIP PHONE) does not correctly mirror the RR
> header - it is removing the hdr parameters, mirroring only the URI,
> which is bogus.
>
> regards,
> bogdan