Hi Henning,
> On Dec 15, 2022, at 11:51 AM, Henning Westerholt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi Alex,
> it might not help you much, but recently I was implementing a similar
> structure in one larger migration project, and it seems to work fine.
> I am not using any special flags for the challenge etc..
> It’s basically like this (pseudo-code)
> route{
> if no auth user -> auth_challenge()
> else -> http_async_query(API, AUTH)
> }
> route[AUTH] {
> get API result for password
> if API failure -> auth_challenge()
> else -> pv_auth_check(..)
> route(next steps)
> }
Yeah, that's more or less what I've got, except the first part.
I don't auth_challenge() every request because some requests are allowed by
static IP, and I don't know whether to auth_challenge() them unless I am
already in the async resume context.
I have eliminated the independent credentials query. At this point my process
is more:
request_route {
...
http_async_query(API, RESUME)
}
route[RESUME] {
if(method == "INVITE") {
if(has_auth_attrib()) {
if(!pv_auth_check(...)) {
auth_challenge("realm", "1");
exit;
}
}
# Get more routing info.
http_async_query(API, RESUME2)
return;
}
}
route[RESUME2} {
t_relay() etc
}
-- Alex
--
Alex Balashov | Principal | Evariste Systems LLC
Tel: +1-706-510-6800 / +1-800-250-5920 (toll-free)
Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/, http://www.csrpswitch.com/
__________________________________________________________
Kamailio - Users Mailing List - Non Commercial Discussions
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Important: keep the mailing list in the recipients, do not reply only to the
sender!
Edit mailing list options or unsubscribe:
