15 Dec
2022
15 Dec
'22
8 p.m.
Hi Henning,
On Dec 15, 2022, at 11:51 AM, Henning Westerholt
<hw(a)gilawa.com> wrote:
Hi Alex,
it might not help you much, but recently I was implementing a similar structure in one
larger migration project, and it seems to work fine.
I am not using any special flags for the challenge etc..
It’s basically like this (pseudo-code)
route{
if no auth user -> auth_challenge()
else -> http_async_query(API, AUTH)
}
route[AUTH] {
get API result for password
if API failure -> auth_challenge()
else -> pv_auth_check(..)
route(next steps)
}
Yeah, that's more or less what I've got, except the first part.
I don't auth_challenge() every request because some requests are allowed by static IP,
and I don't know whether to auth_challenge() them unless I am already in the async
resume context.
I have eliminated the independent credentials query. At this point my process is more:
request_route {
...
http_async_query(API, RESUME)
}
route[RESUME] {
if(method == "INVITE") {
if(has_auth_attrib()) {
if(!pv_auth_check(...)) {
auth_challenge("realm", "1");
exit;
}
}
# Get more routing info.
http_async_query(API, RESUME2)
return;
}
}
route[RESUME2} {
t_relay() etc
}
-- Alex
--
Alex Balashov | Principal | Evariste Systems LLC
Tel: +1-706-510-6800 / +1-800-250-5920 (toll-free)
Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/, http://www.csrpswitch.com/