New subject: Best way to handle OPTIONS message with Max-Forwards of 0

8 Jun 2011

      Thanks for the reply.
In our case, the SBC treated the 483 as an error of some sort and wouldn't send
traffic.  It wanted a 200/OK.
Anyway, I thought that when a proxy responds to an OPTIONS, its supposed to
answer with a 200/OK (3261 11.2).  Is that correct?
Sean O'Donnell
---- On Wed, 8 Jun 2011, Klaus Darilion (klaus.mailinglists@pernau.at) wrote:
What is the problem with the default config?
The proxy will respond with 483 as the standard defines. I guess the SBC
will doe this to check if the proxy is alive and will accept any
response as "the proxy is alive".
regards
Klaus
Am 08.06.2011 18:28, schrieb Sean O'Donnell:
...
Hi:
We're running kamailio 1.5.5 as part of our VoIP infrastructure.  One of our
service providers
has an SBC that sends an OPTIONS messages with a Max-Forwards of 0.
Looking at RFC 3261 section 11, this seems to be a valid method of forcing the
proxy to respond to the OPTIONS.
However, the standard initial sanity checks in most proxy configs will reject
this message.  I fixed our script
by changing to this:
    # initial sanity checks -- messages with
    # max_forwards==0, or excessively long requests
    if (!mf_process_maxfwd_header("10")) {
            if( method != "OPTIONS" ) {
                    sl_send_reply("483","Too Many Hops");
                    return;
            };
    };
    if ( msg:len > max_len ) {
            sl_send_reply("513", "Message too big");
            return;
    };

but does anyone have a better solution?
Thanks,
Sean O'Donnell

SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list
sr-users@lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
_______________________________________________
SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list
sr-users@lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users

Re: [SR-Users] Best way to handle OPTIONS message with Max-Forwards of 0