2010/3/17 Klaus Darilion <[email protected]>: >> This is not valid for the case in which a dialog is forked by a proxy >> behind our proxy. From the point of view of TM it's a single >> transaction. > > That's true. It probably depends on what you actually want to track with the > dialog module. E.g. if you just want to track the number of established > dialogs then you do not care about multiple early dialogs.
But it's also true that more and more modules want to depend on dialog module (take a look to OpenSIPS loadbalancer or mediaproxy modules). And they fail when handling forking calls. > Btw: how are dialogs in dialog module and transactions in tm module are > exactly identified? For example a response with proper callid and fromtag > but faked Via branch, will it be accepted by dialog module but ignored (drop > or stateless forwarding) by tm? Good question. IMHO it should be discarded as TM and dialog level (and not relayed stateless). > Or the other way round - e.g. a spoofed 200 reply with proper Via branchid > and false fromtag. Will it terminate the transaction but keep the dialog in > early state But that is not a spoofed reply, instead it's just a 100% valid reply with a different To-tag. It could occur if the called is a proxy which performs serial forking (so after some seconds our proxy receives responses with a new To-tag, i.e. the remote voicemail server). > Then the real 200 OK will be forwarded stateless by tm module No, it would be a valid response according to TM. > and may bypass dialog module (if callback is only triggered is there is a > matching transaction)? But there is matching transaction so no problem :) -- Iñaki Baz Castillo <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ sr-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev
