2007/8/6, Vaclav Kubart vaclav.kubart@iptel.org:
On Po, srp 06, 2007 at 12:20:09 +0200, samuel wrote:
2007/8/6, Vaclav Kubart vaclav.kubart@iptel.org:
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.)
This will only complicate routing script beyond human understanding
:P....
I don't like the looback-routing algorithms unless it's more than
necessary.
Calling script routes from modules seems less transparent than this... ;-)
Definetely!!!!!
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...
I know ;) It was more a wish for TM module to support these headers.....kind of
use
case for enforce its inclusion in further release roadmap.
:-)) I'm not sure if it helps...
Then I'll have to attend a course on how tm module internally works to be able to start thinking about it...
with regards,
VaclavRegards,
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.
VaclavOn 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