Re: [SR-Users] no socket found for match second RR

2012-09-21 Thread Daniel-Constantin Mierla
Hello, On 9/20/12 9:14 PM, Juha Heinanen wrote: when proxy gets ack to invite, it spits out this kind of error message: Sep 20 22:03:35 wheezy2 /usr/sbin/sip-proxy[4575]: INFO: processing ACK sip:jh@192.98.103.10:5074 Sep 20 22:03:35 wheezy2 /usr/sbin/sip-proxy[4575]: WARNING: rr

Re: [SR-Users] no socket found for match second RR

2012-09-21 Thread jh
why does loose_route() not find the first alias? loose_route() matches the alias as being local (myself condition), but there is no relation between aliases and sockets, so searching a soket using an alias value does not work. ok, but i don't understand what loose_route() has to do with

Re: [SR-Users] no socket found for match second RR

2012-09-21 Thread Daniel-Constantin Mierla
Hello, On 9/21/12 10:38 AM, j...@tutpro.com wrote: why does loose_route() not find the first alias? loose_route() matches the alias as being local (myself condition), but there is no relation between aliases and sockets, so searching a soket using an alias value does not work. ok, but i don't

Re: [SR-Users] no socket found for match second RR

2012-09-21 Thread Juha Heinanen
Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes: If there will be no transport layer bridging, so no double record routing, all should go fine. Actually all should go fine anyway, just a warning message is printed because loose routing is expecting a local socket on double Route headers. daniel, yes,

Re: [SR-Users] no socket found for match second RR

2012-09-21 Thread Daniel-Constantin Mierla
On 9/21/12 11:37 AM, Juha Heinanen wrote: Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes: If there will be no transport layer bridging, so no double record routing, all should go fine. Actually all should go fine anyway, just a warning message is printed because loose routing is expecting a local socket on

Re: [SR-Users] no socket found for match second RR

2012-09-21 Thread Juha Heinanen
Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes: the second is better in this case, because will avoid a loop through local sockets. Also, your case is very rare, the warning is good to spot if someone changed the uri in route headers. daniel, sorry about the noise. there is already rr mod param

Re: [SR-Users] no socket found for match second RR

2012-09-21 Thread Ovidiu Sas
Sorry Juha, I forgot to reply to you that I added that warning in the code for the same reason. What do you mean by a parameter that disables looking for the socket? -ovidiu On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Juha Heinanen j...@tutpro.com wrote: Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes: the second is

Re: [SR-Users] no socket found for match second RR

2012-09-21 Thread Juha Heinanen
Ovidiu Sas writes: I forgot to reply to you that I added that warning in the code for the same reason. What do you mean by a parameter that disables looking for the socket? hi ovidiu, the piece of code currently looks like this: if (enable_double_rr is_2rr(puri.params)) {

Re: [SR-Users] no socket found for match second RR

2012-09-21 Thread Ovidiu Sas
It would need to be per loose_route() call, because a server can have mixed traffic (real sockets only and real and advertised). For real sockets, you would want to run the checks. For advertised, you would not want to run the checks. Then in the config, you will need to track calls through

[SR-Users] no socket found for match second RR

2012-09-20 Thread Juha Heinanen
when proxy gets ack to invite, it spits out this kind of error message: Sep 20 22:03:35 wheezy2 /usr/sbin/sip-proxy[4575]: INFO: processing ACK sip:jh@192.98.103.10:5074 Sep 20 22:03:35 wheezy2 /usr/sbin/sip-proxy[4575]: WARNING: rr [loose.c:744]: no socket found for match second RR route