Re: [Serusers] chosing the right Via header in multihomed SER instance - sr-users

27 Jan 2005

Thanks!

We just tried and it worked....just a "small" missing detail.

Samuel

Unclassified.
...
 >> Jan Janak &lt;jan(a)iptel.org&gt; 01/27/05
06:55PM >>> Try to use mhomed=yes in the configuration file of SER_1. It
should
then
put the IP of the outgoing interface (unicast) into Via.

  Jan.

On 25-01 10:30, Samuel Osorio Calvo wrote:
...
  Hi,

 I have received this and I don't know what's wrong, maybe any guru can
...
  help:

 Samuel.

 Unclassified.
 In my test lab i found that SER adds a wrong VIA
header. 
The scenario is like this:
phone1 ---- SER_1 ----- SER_2 ---- phone2

phone 1 is registered at SER_1 (it's proxy)
phone 2 is registered at SER_2  (it's proxy)

When phone2 wants to call phone1, it sends the invite to SER2. SER2  checks in their
local database for phone1, and does not find it. SER2
...
  forwards the invite message on (using >multicast
address 230.x.x.x).
 SER1 is listening on two addresses: unicast one (192.y.y.y) and
 multicast one (230.x.x.x). He receives the invite from the multicast
 address, checks for >phone1 and finds it registered in his local
 database. SER1 relays (t_relay) to phone one. Here is where the error is
...
  introduced: SER1 adds a VIA header to the message
relayed to
phone1,
 but instead of this header containing the SER1_unicast address, it
 contains the multicast one. This makes phone1 to then reply and send
 messages to the multicast >address (taken from the via in the invite),
...
  instead of following the recourd-route setting (for
the OK message it
...
  does follow it, not for ACK or 1xx).
 >
 >Any idea on what is wrong? 
 >I read in the code something about support for multi-homed proxies, as
...
  well as a parameter called default_global_address.
Might these help?

Thanks in advance!

Cesc  
 _______________________________________________
 Serusers mailing list
 serusers(a)lists.iptel.org 
 http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers 