Hi Carsten,
If I'm not wrong, it is exactly the case presented by Klaus.
I do not say this functionality make no sense, but currently there is
not way to get it via a fast patch.
regards,
Bogdan
Carsten Bock wrote:
Hi all,
i would like to add another use-case, where using sl_send_reply in a
reply route makes sense to me:
After a update, one of our main carriers is sending 183 replies without
SDP-Body. It would be cool, if i could change this into a 180 Ringing
reply...
(Of course, we could claim to the carrier, that this is a bug in their
gateway, but until it's fixed, it'll take several months ;-)
Just my 0.02$,
Carsten
Am Donnerstag, den 04.10.2007, 14:21 +0300 schrieb Bogdan-Andrei Iancu:
Hi Henning,
I have some concerns (even on a first view things work) about couple of
issues:
- there are some direct access to the sip_msg structure as a
requests (the struct contains a union for reply and requests) and the
read information will be bogus. Like we have a filter:
msg->first_line.u.request.method_value==METHOD_ACK
which will be bogus for a reply.
- routing - the module determins where to send the reply in two ways:
1) based on top most via (assuming a request is processed),
so for a reply it will be again bogus
2) based on the received field from sip_msg struct - to send
it where the request came from; again bogus....
It will be safer to undo the change until we understand all the
implications...
Thanks and regards,
Bogdan
Henning Westerholt wrote:
On Wednesday 03 October 2007, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote:
Hi Henning,
I'm not sure this is correct. The sl_send_reply() function expects to
receive a sip requests from the script, but in onreply_route you have a
sip reply.....it might by bogus....
and why do you want to send a reply while processing a received reply?
Hello Bogdan,
thanks for your comment. We did some tests, it seems to work. But if you're
unsure about this change, i will revert it and it gets some more testing.
Let me explain one usecase for this:
In a parallel forking scenario you get several 183s with SDP. You don't want
that your customers hear more than one ringtone or answer machine in parallel
on the phone. So its necessary to drop the 183 and send a 180 instead.
Perhaps there exists another possiblity to achieve this?
Cheers,
Henning
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
Devel@openser.org
http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
Devel@openser.org
http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel
