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

[Nils Ohlmeier]

On Monday 16 July 2007 11:55:27 Jiri Kuthan wrote:
> Not sure it is worth patching the code which is IMO working.
>
> If I understand it right, you are having tel URI in Route? However this
> might have happened, that seems little sensible to me. The point is that
> tel URI is used to decouple a PSTN destination from a possible path via IP
> netowrk, whereas Route is intended to lay down such a path. Putting these
> two things together appears of limited use value to me.

No, he has a tel URI in the RURI. And a SIP URI as preloaded Route. Which is a 
legal combination. The tel URI should dis-appear when the dialog is 
established, so the tel URI will only be used for routing the inital request.

  Nils

> Anyhow, would you mind sending a dump of the SIP request in question -- I'm
> a bit confused what situation we are actually solving.
>
> -jiri
>
> At 19:46 10/07/2007, JF wrote:
> >no comments?
> >
> >On 6/28/07, JF <jfkavaka at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I would propose to simply apply this patch to modules/rr/loose.c:
> >>
> >> @@ -1069,8 +1069,8 @@
> >>                 return -1;
> >>         }
> >>
> >> -       if (is_myself(&_m->parsed_uri.host, _m->parsed_uri.port_no)
> >> -                       || _m->parsed_uri.type==TEL_URI_T ||
> >> _m->parsed_uri.type==TELS_URI_T) {
> >> +       if (_m->parsed_uri.type==TEL_URI_T ||
> >> _m->parsed_uri.type==TELS_URI_T || +                      
> >> is_myself(&_m->parsed_uri.host,
> >> _m->parsed_uri.port_no)) {
> >>                 DBG("loose_route: RURI is myself (or tel URI)\n");
> >>                 if ((ret = is_myself(&puri.host, puri.port_no)) == 1 &&
> >>                         !(enable_double_rr && is_2rr(&puri.params))) {
> >>
> >>
> >> JF
> >>
> >> On 6/22/07, Greger Viken Teigre <greger at teigre.com> wrote:
> >> > This seems like a corner case where the tel uri with no domain results
> >> > in maybe a bit unfortunate return code from loose_route. Comments
> >> > anyone?
> >> > g-)
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > ------- Original message -------
> >> > From: JF <jfkavaka at gmail.com>
> >> > Cc: serusers at iptel.org, openimscore-cscf at lists.berlios.de
> >> > Sent: 22.6.'07,  11:11
> >> >
> >> > > Thanks Greger,
> >> > >
> >> > > The problem is related to the fact that the Req-URI is a tel-URI.
> >> > > I had to work around it in the script by not letting loose_route get
> >> > > called when the URI is a tel URI.
> >> > >
> >> > > In loose.c, loose_route() says (by looking at the log):
> >> > > DBG("loose_route: RURI is NOT myself\n");
> >> > > because Req-URI doesn't have a host part.
> >> > >
> >> > > Then after_loose(_m, &puri, 1, 0) is called because the single
> >> > > existing Route header has our SIP URI.
> >> > > And then:
> >> > > DBG("after_loose: Topmost route URI: '%.*s' is me\n", uri->len,
> >> > > ZSW(uri->s)); and
> >> > > DBG("after_loose: No next URI found\n");
> >> > > An since _ruri_myself == 0, return RR_DRIVEN;
> >> > >
> >> > > IMO the fact that the Req-URI is a tel URI shouldn't make
> >> > > loose_route return true in this case...
> >> > >
> >> > > JF
> >> > >
> >> > > On 6/21/07, Greger V. Teigre <greger at teigre.com> wrote:
> >> > > > If there's a single Route header pointing to itself, then this is
> >> > > > a good indication that a UA added a Route to your proxy as an
> >> > > > outbound proxy. If SER correctly identities the uri as itself, it
> >> > > > should AFAIK return false. Could you please turn on debugging and
> >> > > > then look for loose_route and after_loose debug messages in the
> >> > > > logs and post them?
> >> > > > g-)
> >> > > >
> >> > > > JF wrote:
> >> > > > > Hi all,
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > When SER receives an INVITE with a single Route header pointing
> >> > > > > to itself, it's supposed to delete it and process the message as
> >> > > > > if no Route header was there in the first place. This is what
> >> > > > > RFC3261 mandates, right?
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > But currently the loose_route function returns true to the
> >> > > > > script in this case, just like when more Route headers are
> >> > > > > present.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > So I have some routing logic for when no Route headers are
> >> > > > > present, and if I want to apply the same routing logic to the
> >> > > > > case when there is a single Route header pointing to myself
> >> > > > > (naturally, as it's the same as if no Route header was present),
> >> > > > > I currently have to replicate the same routing logic inside the
> >> > > > > if (loose_route())...
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Or is there an other way? Do I have to develop my own module
> >> > > > > function or use some regexp search from the script to detect if
> >> > > > > there are more Routes besides myself before I call loose_route?
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > The best would be to change loose_route to return false and just
> >> > > > > remove the Route header pointing to myself when there are no
> >> > > > > more Route headers in the message... what do you think?
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > JF
> >> > > > > _______________________________________________
> >> > > > > Serusers mailing list
> >> > > > > Serusers at lists.iptel.org
> >> > > > > http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
> >> > >
> >> > > _______________________________________________
> >> > > Serusers mailing list
> >> > > Serusers at lists.iptel.org
> >> > > http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Serusers mailing list
> >Serusers at lists.iptel.org
> >http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
>
> --
> Jiri Kuthan            http://iptel.org/~jiri/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Serdev mailing list
> Serdev at lists.iptel.org
> http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serdev