> On 29/11/2016, at 9:26 PM, Răzvan Crainea <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 11/29/2016 04:09 AM, Nathan Ward wrote: >>> On 29/11/2016, at 5:25 AM, Răzvan Crainea <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, Nathan! >>> >>> Have you tried calling b2b_init_request() with the "a" flag [1]? >>> >>> [1] http://www.opensips.org/html/docs/modules/2.2.x/b2b_logic.html#id294010 >> Hi, >> >> Yes I have. This passes through the authentication challenge headers in the >> 401/407, and then any subsequent response headers in the new INVITE. >> >> b2b_logic/logic.c:1239 calls b2b_mark_todel, after forwarding the message - >> because it is marked to_del, the ACK that the originator of the INVITE sends >> in response to the 401/407 deletes the session. >> >> I don’t understand how this flag is intended to be used, as there doesn’t >> seem to be anything in the code to avoid setting to_del if the response is a >> 401/407 (or anything >=300, actually) with auth challenge headers. All it >> does is pass through the headers, but as it deletes the session, a new >> Call-ID is issued by B2BUA when the authenticated invite is generated. >> > Hi, Nathan! > > Yes, you are right, the flag simply passes the auth headers between the two > legs. > So you were saying that you were only using b2b for topology hiding? If so, > why not using directly the topology_hiding module[1]?
Sure that’s an option, however I would like to understand the B2BUA module better. What is the use case for passing authentication headers if the B2BUA instance is shut down when a challenge (401/407) passes through? -- Nathan Ward _______________________________________________ Users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
