30 Jan
2018
30 Jan
'18
12:22 p.m.
Hi list,
I have a setup configurered has diagram below:
UAC -> Proxy LB (proxy lb) -> Proxy Router/registrar (proxy B) -> Asterisk
SBC
My UAC is SIPP and sending a classic call scenario: INVITE - ACK - BYE.
But i have some trouble to understand which queries should be loose routed
and which queries should be dispatched by dispatcher module.
My first invite request has been dispatched to proxy B by proxy LB.
After that, ACK and BYE request should be loose_routed or should be
dispatched as other request ? My proxy B is a statefull proxy, logging cdrs
and other stuff ...
From my point of view, subsequent request should be
loose_routed to keep
dialog informations consistent. My subsequent requests have
record-route
headers. Should i use theses headers to route my calls ?
Loose routing features only work with "Route" header ? What is the
difference beetwen Route headers and Record-route headers ?
Thanks in advance,
Regards.
30 Jan
30 Jan
12:51 p.m.
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 10:22:39AM +0100, Loic Chabert wrote:
I have a setup configurered has diagram below:
UAC -> Proxy LB (proxy lb) -> Proxy Router/registrar (proxy B) -> Asterisk
SBC
My UAC is SIPP and sending a classic call scenario: INVITE - ACK - BYE.
But i have some trouble to understand which queries should be loose routed
and which queries should be dispatched by dispatcher module.
Having a similar setup:
-all messages not from the ipadresses of "Proxy Router/registrar"
machines are DISPATCHed
-everything else is loose_route()-ed
My first invite request has been dispatched to proxy B
by proxy LB.
After that, ACK and BYE request should be loose_routed or should be
dispatched as other request ? My proxy B is a statefull proxy, logging cdrs
and other stuff ...
From my point of view, subsequent request should be loose_routed to keep
dialog informations consistent. My subsequent requests have record-route
headers. Should i use theses headers to route my calls ?
Yes, all subsequent message cvan be handled within dialog. Your config could be
something really close to the basic kamailio config (with WITH_NAT defined)
request_route {
route(REQINIT);
route(NATDETECT);
route(WITHINDLG);
if (is_method("INVITE|SUBSCRIBE"))
{
record_route();
}
if(!is_in_subnet($si, "x.y.z.a/bc"))
{
add_path_received();
ds_select_dst(1, 0);
t_on_failure("RTF_DISPATCH");
}
else
{
remove_hf("Route");
loose_route();
}
route(RELAY);
}
Loose routing features only work with
"Route" header ? What is the
difference beetwen Route headers and Record-route headers ?
I'll leave this answer to the experts :)
1:14 p.m.
Thanks Daniel,
Your snippet code must be used in proxy/registrar or on LB ?
The proxy/registrar should follow the same behaviour with the SBC and the
lb ? Loose_route every request from sbc and dispatch request from lb to sbc
?
Regards.
2018-01-30 10:51 GMT+01:00 Daniel Tryba <d.tryba(a)pocos.nl>nl>:
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 10:22:39AM +0100, Loic Chabert
wrote:
I have a setup configurered has diagram below:
UAC -> Proxy LB (proxy lb) -> Proxy Router/registrar (proxy B) ->
Asterisk
SBC
My UAC is SIPP and sending a classic call scenario: INVITE - ACK - BYE.
But i have some trouble to understand which queries should be loose
routed
and which queries should be dispatched by
dispatcher module.
Having a similar setup:
-all messages not from the ipadresses of "Proxy Router/registrar"
machines are DISPATCHed
-everything else is loose_route()-ed
My first invite request has been dispatched to
proxy B by proxy LB.
After that, ACK and BYE request should be loose_routed or should be
dispatched as other request ? My proxy B is a statefull proxy, logging
cdrs
and other stuff ...
From my point of view, subsequent request should be loose_routed to keep
dialog informations consistent. My subsequent requests have record-route
headers. Should i use theses headers to route my calls ?
Yes, all subsequent message cvan be handled within dialog. Your config
could be
something really close to the basic kamailio config (with WITH_NAT defined)
request_route {
route(REQINIT);
route(NATDETECT);
route(WITHINDLG);
if (is_method("INVITE|SUBSCRIBE"))
{
record_route();
}
if(!is_in_subnet($si, "x.y.z.a/bc"))
{
add_path_received();
ds_select_dst(1, 0);
t_on_failure("RTF_DISPATCH");
}
else
{
remove_hf("Route");
loose_route();
}
route(RELAY);
}
Loose routing features only work with
"Route" header ? What is the
difference beetwen Route headers and Record-route headers ?
I'll leave this answer to the experts :)
_______________________________________________
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
6 p.m.
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 11:14:18AM +0100, Loic Chabert wrote:
Thanks Daniel,
Your snippet code must be used in proxy/registrar or on LB ?
It's for the loadbalancer. The registrar also is a near default supplied
config, only added support for Path to be used for REGISTERs and
dispatcher.
The proxy/registrar should follow the same behaviour
with the SBC and the
lb ? Loose_route every request from sbc and dispatch request from lb to sbc
?
As far as I understand it is simply based on loose routing for all
messages after dispatching INVITEs with ds_*.
BTW my SBCs don't initiate calls to the registrar/proxies but to the
loadbalancers (SIP domain via DNS/SRV/NAPTR)
UACa -> LB -> REGISTRAR/Proxy -> LB -> UACb
UACa -> LB -> REGISTRAR/Proxy -> SBC -> UACb
UACa -> SBC -> LB -> REGISTRAR/Proxy -> LB -> UACb
UACa -> SBC -> LB -> REGISTRAR/Proxy -> SBC -> UACb
8:25 p.m.
If i check my ACK messages sent from my LB to my proxy, to Route headers is
present. So my ack has not been forwarded to my SBC. So i can't route all
subsequent INVITE messages without using dispatcher for ACK messages.
ACK messages are in the same INVITE transaction ?
My SBC is asterisk, and does not insert Record-route headers. Is it a
normal behaviour for an SBC ?
Regards.
2018-01-30 16:00 GMT+01:00 Daniel Tryba <d.tryba(a)pocos.nl>nl>:
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 11:14:18AM +0100, Loic Chabert
wrote:
Thanks Daniel,
Your snippet code must be used in proxy/registrar or on LB ?
It's for the loadbalancer. The registrar also is a near default supplied
config, only added support for Path to be used for REGISTERs and
dispatcher.
The proxy/registrar should follow the same
behaviour with the SBC and the
lb ? Loose_route every request from sbc and dispatch request from lb to
sbc
?
As far as I understand it is simply based on loose routing for all
messages after dispatching INVITEs with ds_*.
BTW my SBCs don't initiate calls to the registrar/proxies but to the
loadbalancers (SIP domain via DNS/SRV/NAPTR)
UACa -> LB -> REGISTRAR/Proxy -> LB -> UACb
UACa -> LB -> REGISTRAR/Proxy -> SBC -> UACb
UACa -> SBC -> LB -> REGISTRAR/Proxy -> LB -> UACb
UACa -> SBC -> LB -> REGISTRAR/Proxy -> SBC -> UACb
_______________________________________________
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
8:27 p.m.
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 06:25:57PM +0100, Loic Chabert wrote:
ACK messages are in the same INVITE transaction ?
No, e2e ACKs are a transaction in their own right.
However:
(a) They will have the same CSeq number as the INVITE to which they
correspond;
(b) They are a bit "special" in that they gather no responses.
My SBC is asterisk, and does not insert Record-route
headers. Is it a
normal behaviour for an SBC ?
Only proxies add Record-Route headers. The job of the endpoints is to
marshal them into Route headers in in-dialog requests.
-- Alex
--
Alex Balashov | Principal | Evariste Systems LLC
Tel: +1-706-510-6800 / +1-800-250-5920 (toll-free)
Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/, http://www.csrpswitch.com/
2491
days inactive
2491
days old
5 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Alex Balashov -
Daniel Tryba -
Loic Chabert