21 Feb
2006
21 Feb
'06
11:23 p.m.
Hi,
I've got a question regarding the handling of location information.
I came up in a situation where I had my dispatcher layer adding path to the register
before it was sent to the registrar.
However, if the register then again is replicated to another server, and the next server
is adding a received to the usrloc entry, how should this server forward the INVITES...?
To the "path" or to the "received"?
PS, I'm not saying this is how it should be done, I'm just curious about the
implications :-)
br hw
Mvh,
Helge Waastad
Senior Engineer
Smartnet
tlf: 67830017
22 Feb
22 Feb
8:54 p.m.
Hi Helge,
this is a topic I was discussing with Andreas since he contributed the
path patch. currently the path has priority against received, but IMHO
it should be the opposite..
see here some arguments:
http://www.openser.org/pipermail/devel/2006-January/001799.html
any suggestion / opinions are welcome.
regards,
bogdan
Helge Waastad wrote:
Hi,
I've got a question regarding the handling of location information.
I came up in a situation where I had my dispatcher layer adding path
to the register before it was sent to the registrar.
However, if the register then again is replicated to another server,
and the next server is adding a received to the usrloc entry, how
should this server forward the INVITES...? To the "path" or to the
"received"?
PS, I'm not saying this is how it should be done, I'm just curious
about the implications :-)
br hw
Mvh,
Helge Waastad
Senior Engineer
Smartnet
tlf: 67830017
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
Users(a)openser.org
http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
23 Feb
23 Feb
4:56 p.m.
Hi,
It seems I'm not as good as I thought I was to actually read the
dev-list :-)
According to the thread setting path:<obp-ip>;lr;<received-ip> I'm not
sure if this is currently possible (without avp parsing) but it seems
that not using received at all at least fixes my problem. The setup
(demo) Im using is as follows (and I'm pretty satisfied of the
picture ;-) ):
UAC | OBP#1(NAT)--OS#1 -|
| \ / |
| \/ |
DNS-SRV /\ | t_replicate/db-cluster
| / \ |
UAC | OBP#2(NAT)--OS#2 -|
The received parameter messed up my routing logic while I was trying to
route the messages back from where the REGISTER was replicated from. (I
tried to add received by calling fix_nated_register()..)
In this scenario, both db and servers will have the same path and
location entries for the different UAC's
Right now, I'm not sure if the received parameters is necessary....
And then again, it's not the first time I've been wrong :-9
br hw
ons, 22,.02.2006 kl. 20.54 +0200, skrev Bogdan-Andrei Iancu:
Hi Helge,
this is a topic I was discussing with Andreas since he contributed the
path patch. currently the path has priority against received, but IMHO
it should be the opposite..
see here some arguments:
http://www.openser.org/pipermail/devel/2006-January/001799.html
any suggestion / opinions are welcome.
regards,
bogdan
Helge Waastad wrote:
--
Helge Waastad
Senior Konsulent
Systemavdelingen
Smartnet
Hi,
I've got a question regarding the handling of location information.
I came up in a situation where I had my dispatcher layer adding path
to the register before it was sent to the registrar.
However, if the register then again is replicated to another server,
and the next server is adding a received to the usrloc entry, how
should this server forward the INVITES...? To the "path" or to the
"received"?
PS, I'm not saying this is how it should be done, I'm just curious
about the implications :-)
br hw
Mvh,
Helge Waastad
Senior Engineer
Smartnet
tlf: 67830017
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
Users(a)openser.org
http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
6850
days inactive
6852
days old
2 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Bogdan-Andrei Iancu -
Helge Waastad -
Helge Waastad