[Serusers] [Serdev] loose_route behaviour, detecting single Route with myself

[Greger V. Teigre]

Ok, let me try to take a step back. This discussion is an example of why 
ser.cfg sometimes seems like black magic for most users. It's very 
complicated to get a generic config that works in most scenarios. What 
we really need to make sure is that people can use the recommended black 
magic in most cases, that it is intuitive how to add their own stuff, 
and that we make it difficult to "break".. phew...

What would a "normal" user like to know in ser.cfg?
1. Do I need to process like an INVITE or do I t_relay?
2. How do I open or prevent relaying?

Ex. I am sure quite a lot of configs will let an INVITE with a 
pre-loaded Route go through without authentication...

I still feel that preloaded_route() and in_dialog() would be simpler to 
understand for most people. I agree with Martin that maybe having a 
separate function checking/removing/failing a pre-loaded route is 
cleaner than letting loose_route() do it.

The problem of "non-2xx ACK with a preloaded route looks exactly the 
same then a 2xx ACK" is a corner-case, and I don't see any solution 
either, than the  suggest uri param in the rr.  So, could we 
automaticlly add the rr param if and only if the original INVITE is 
forwarded statelessly?
The above functions could thus look for the rr param to detect the 
corner-case and thus behave consistently.
g-)

Martin Hoffmann wrote:
> Nils Ohlmeier wrote:
>   
>> On Friday 13 July 2007 14:12:52 Martin Hoffmann wrote:
>>     
>>> Nils Ohlmeier wrote:
>>>       
>>>> But with this theory we are back to the original topic: is a TEL URI a
>>>> local URI or not.
>>>>         
>>> I though that was solved. Only SIP and SIPS URI are allowed in Contact.
>>> Your 2xx ACK will never have a TEL URI (unless the UA is broken in which
>>> case someone should have sent a 400 back).
>>>       
>> No. That is not true. Because you could receive a non-2xx ACK with a TEL RURI 
>> and preloaded route. What now?
>>     
>
> Depends on what you do with an INVITE. Same thing shall be done to that
> ACK. Which means you cannot have loose_route() decide for you.
>  
>   
>>>> Is just came to my mind that a possible solution could be to add some
>>>> kind of secret information to our Record-Route headers.
>>>>         
>>> /me not like. Sounds like magic plus vendor specific extensions are
>>> frowned upon in SIP.
>>>       
>> Sure, they are. But I currently do not really see any option for this problem. 
>>     
>
> Possibly, the problem is that loose_route() is trying to be smart. Maybe
> it should be split in two. One function removes the topmost Route if
> present and pointing to this proxy (it can return false if the Route is
> all wrong and we can reply 4xx then), another one that allows to check
> if there is a Route left. The rest is done in config.
>
> Without reading 3261 again, I think this can be done in a way compatible
> with strict routing.
>
> Regards,
> Martin
>
>
>   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sip-router.org/pipermail/sr-users/attachments/20070716/bad756cf/attachment.htm>