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 advert
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)
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 wrote:
> Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes:
>
>> the second is better in thi
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
enabl
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 d
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,
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
>> 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
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
Sep 20 22:03:35 wheezy2 /usr/sbin/sip-proxy[4575]: WARNING: rr [loose.c:744]:
no socket found for ma
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
Sep 20 22:03:35 wheezy2 /usr/sbin/sip-proxy[4575]: WARNING: rr [loose.c:744]:
no socket found for match second RR
route headers in the request are:
R
10 matches
Mail list logo
