<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
You can actually use the select and avps to implement Path header
functionality in ser.cfg by storing path info in db. I have never done
it, but a how-to for iptel.org faqs would be much appreciated ;-)<br>
g-)<br>
<br>
Vaclav Kubart wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:20070806100300.GC3170@vencore.sip-server.net"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Po, srp 06, 2007 at 11:41:46 +0200, samuel wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I'll give a try to this parameter...I didn't pay enough attention to the
serdev mail....
Maybe a reasonable approach would be to be able to define a presence
outbound proxy (as it's done in presence_b2b) and you can set up "easily" a
separate presence proxy or route the messages to yourself so you can process
it again in your config script. This would, however, break just a little bit
3261 routing algorithm....easy but I don't like it...
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Good idea. :-) I like it much more than calling script routes from presence
modules. And it is much easier to implement it.
But similar effect could be probably got by forwarding the SUBSCRIBE
request once more to itself if it will be needed to process the NOTIFYs
by nathelper. (Adds a step to routes where can be the "deNATification"
done.)
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Thinking loud...what about Path or Service-Route headers compatibility in
presence modules?? Setting up these headers would allow flexible routing
while keeping compliancy to standards...Can this be achieved with
2.0release and select framework??
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Sorry, we don't support these in presence modules...
Vaclav
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Regards,
Samuel.
2007/8/6, Vaclav Kubart <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:vaclav.kubart@iptel.org"><vaclav.kubart@iptel.org></a>:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Yes, you are right.
But Maxim has introduced new module parameter by which you can say, that
NOTIFY is not target refresh request and thus NOTIFY responses won't
refresh the target.
>From my point of view is this only temporary hack (because NOTIFY was in
some discussions aggreed to be target refresh). Better solution is
probably to let the NOTIFY go through config script and process it and
its responses by nathelper.
Vaclav
On Po, srp 06, 2007 at 10:24:17 +0200, samuel wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">mmmm
coming back to the discussion....the missing OK Contact mangle happened
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">with
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">a separated prosence proxy...
I was wondering...In the case of a single SIP server
(proxy,registrar,presence,...) when the "presence" part sends the NOTIFY
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">to
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">a natted UA and this latter one replies with the 200OK, the Contact
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">would
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">contain the internal IP and since this NOTIFY is not handled by the SER
route config file , it can not be managed by nathelper|mediaproxy
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">options.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">This would cause a modification in the target of the dialog to the
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">internal
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">IP (following RFC 3261) and the presence dialog would be useless because
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">no
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">notifications would work....am I right?
Thanks,
Samuel.
2007/8/3, samuel <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:samu60@gmail.com"><samu60@gmail.com></a>:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Ok.
I found out the "problem", there was a missing NAT handling of the
responses, and the 200 OK response updated the target dialog with a
non-routable IP. That's why further messages had the wronf Req-URI.
Thanks for your pointers,
sam.
2007/8/2, Vaclav Kubart <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:vaclav.kubart@iptel.org"><vaclav.kubart@iptel.org></a>:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hi Samuel,
Maxim Sobolev was fighting with NAT and presence some time ago.
I was trying to allow calling script route block when sending NOTIFY
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">to
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">allow its modifications, but I had not enough time to get results.
The NOTIFY should be constructed according RFC 3261; the request URI
should be the value from Contact of the SUBSCRIBE request (if only
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">loose
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">routers in routes appear).
To, From, Via and routes should follow RFC 3261 too.
Contact header value is the address at which the SUBSCRIBE request
arrives to the server (according examples in RFC 3856, this is
controversial but possible).
Modifying of async_auth_queries should have no influence on sent
NOTIFYs. If does, it is probably a bug.
All headers you mentioned are derived from dialog initiating
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">SUBSCRIBE
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">request as RFC says.
Vaclav
On Čt, srp 02, 2007 at 12:05:02 +0200, samuel wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hi all!!!
I'm experiencing quite difficulties setting up a dedicated (and
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">separated)
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">presence server with NATted end-points and the dstblacklist
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">feature.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I'd like to get some info about the construction of the most
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">important
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">headers (Req-URI,Contact,To,From,Via,Routr) for the different
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">NOTIFY
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">modalities depending on the state of the subscription.
Setting up async_auth_queries I've seen the pending and the active
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">NOTIFY
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">have different Req-URI and the second one is blocked by the NAT
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">router.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Further mid-dialog NOTIFYs providing changes in the presence
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">status
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">has also
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">different headers...
My main concern is whether the info for constructing the routing
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">headers is
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">taken from location table, from watcherinfo.dialog table, or from
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">the
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">incoming message...I know I could follow the code but an
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">explanation
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">would
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">provide a really helpfull overview and later checking the code
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">will be
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">much
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">simpler.
Thanks in advance,
Samuel.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Serusers@lists.iptel.org">Serusers@lists.iptel.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers">http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Serusers@lists.iptel.org">Serusers@lists.iptel.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers">http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Serusers@lists.iptel.org">Serusers@lists.iptel.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers">http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Serusers@lists.iptel.org">Serusers@lists.iptel.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers">http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>