17 Oct
2008
17 Oct
'08
5:53 p.m.
Klaus Darilion wrote:
So do you perform lookup() also for in_dialog
requests?
When necessary.
Otherwise, A endpoint just provides the URI of the Z-end of the
signaling path for the domain and I make special exceptions to relay
that as long as I have the Call-ID stored somewhere, which I do.
--
Alex Balashov
Evariste Systems
Web : http://www.evaristesys.com/
Tel : (+1) (678) 954-0670
Direct : (+1) (678) 954-0671
Mobile : (+1) (706) 338-8599
17 Oct
17 Oct
6:44 p.m.
New subject: [Kamailio-Users] In-dialog request correlation without loose routing?
I guess as long as all the clients are loose_routers (final target in
the RURI) it will work even without loose_route, if you only have 1
proxy between the clients.
Of course the forwarded in-dialgo requests will still have an Route
header which is actually not RFC conform but ignored by allmost all SIP
clients.
I would say: dirty but it works in closed setups (no public Internet
telephony)
klaus
Alex Balashov schrieb:
Klaus Darilion wrote:
So do you perform lookup() also for in_dialog
requests?
When necessary.
Otherwise, A endpoint just provides the URI of the Z-end of the
signaling path for the domain and I make special exceptions to relay
that as long as I have the Call-ID stored somewhere, which I do.
6:47 p.m.
New subject: [Kamailio-Users] In-dialog request correlation without loose routing?
Klaus Darilion wrote:
I guess as long as all the clients are loose_routers
(final target in
the RURI) it will work even without loose_route, if you only have 1
proxy between the clients.
Of course the forwarded in-dialgo requests will still have an Route
header which is actually not RFC conform but ignored by allmost all SIP
clients.
So, you're saying it's better to run loose_route() to have it consume
this extraneous Route: header?
--
Alex Balashov
Evariste Systems
Web : http://www.evaristesys.com/
Tel : (+1) (678) 954-0670
Direct : (+1) (678) 954-0671
Mobile : (+1) (706) 338-8599
6:52 p.m.
New subject: [Kamailio-Users] In-dialog request correlation without loose routing?
Alex Balashov schrieb:
Klaus Darilion wrote:
Better? hard to say
But at least more elegant and standard conform
klaus
I guess as long as all the clients are
loose_routers (final target in
the RURI) it will work even without loose_route, if you only have 1
proxy between the clients.
Of course the forwarded in-dialgo requests will still have an Route
header which is actually not RFC conform but ignored by allmost all
SIP clients.
So, you're saying it's better to run loose_route() to have it consume
this extraneous Route: header?
6:53 p.m.
New subject: [Kamailio-Users] In-dialog request correlation without loose routing?
Klaus Darilion wrote:
Alex Balashov schrieb:
Well, thank you, I appreciate the insight. :)
--
Alex Balashov
Evariste Systems
Web : http://www.evaristesys.com/
Tel : (+1) (678) 954-0670
Direct : (+1) (678) 954-0671
Mobile : (+1) (706) 338-8599
Klaus Darilion wrote:
Better? hard to say
But at least more elegant and standard conform I guess as long as all the clients are
loose_routers (final target in
the RURI) it will work even without loose_route, if you only have 1
proxy between the clients.
Of course the forwarded in-dialgo requests will still have an Route
header which is actually not RFC conform but ignored by allmost all
SIP clients.
So, you're saying it's better to run loose_route() to have it consume
this extraneous Route: header?
5881
days inactive
5881
days old
4 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Alex Balashov -
Klaus Darilion