[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [Linphone-users]Bugs in Linphone (Route Header+shutdown hangs)

From: Aymeric Moizard
Subject: RE: [Linphone-users]Bugs in Linphone (Route Header+shutdown hangs)
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 21:54:54 +0100 (CET)

On Tue, 4 Feb 2003, Klaus Darilion wrote:

> From: Aymeric Moizard [mailto:address@hidden
> Subject: Re: [Linphone-users]Bugs in Linphone (Route
> Header+shutdown hangs)
> >
> > On Tue, 4 Feb 2003, Klaus Darilion wrote:
> >
> ...
> > > Then I sent the invite without the route header and everthing works
> > > fine
> > > - so is the route header misplaced in an invite? Yes!
> > Because there must
> > > not be a route header in a request (for example INVITE) without an
> > > existing dialog because we don't know yet which proxy will add the
> > > "Record-Route" header. (RFC3261 section 12: Dialogs)
> >
> > Not true.
> > The Route header is a "pre-route set". This is the compliant
> > way to send an initial request to a specific outbound proxy.
> >
> > We have also noticed that the sip server also
> > refuse this option.
> >
> > To avoid this issue, you can just disable the "outbound
> > proxy" and enable the "proxy server" one in the SIP
> > configuration of linphone. The behavior will be the same but
> > the route header will not be included in the initial request.
> >
> > If you still get problems, let me know.
> I tried it but it didn't worked. When I use "proxy server", the INIVITE
> is sent to the proxy (same ip as registrar) and a "Route" header is
> inserted. --> doesn't work with iptel server.
> When I use "outbound proxy", there is no "route" header, but the request
> is not sent to proxy but directly to the callee.

Too bad...
I agree with you that we should'nt have all this different configuration.
(by reading this end of the mail, it seems to be done in 0.10?)
As you suggest, linphone should test if the route and the url points to
the same host and just avoid to add this unusefull route header.

I would like to know wether ser will support a pre-route set with
a different host? Can you confirm that?

> What is it good for to have a "pre-route set" when the server in the
> route header is the same as the one to which the invite is sent?

By using the Route header, the mechanism to send the request is always
the same. In linphone case, this makes the code to send requests simpler
as there is no special cases based on the context of the dialog (first
invite without a dialog, second invite without a dialog (authentication),
re-invite within a dialog.

This makes the application easier to code, maintain. :)
Hope you are convinced.

> If I want my INIVITE to be sent via a certain proxy but I have to use
> an outbound proxy first, a route header looks reasonable to me. But in
> the case of linphone the proxy in the route header is the same as the
> outbound proxy. Maybe this confuses the iptel proxy?

Hope you are right.

> I also don't understand the various proxy settings in linphone:
> What is the difference between the "outbound proxy", "redirect proxy"
> and "proxy server" setting in detail (linphone 0.9.1)?
> And what are the changes in linphone 0.10.0 where there is only the "Use
> this registrar as outbound proxy" option.

I don't have gnome2 so I can't tell you.

> Furthermore, a scenario where the registrar server is not the same as
> the outbound proxy can' be solved. Wouldn't it be better to allow to
> different servers?

It would be.

> Thank you for your answers,
> Klaus
> _______________________________________________
> Linphone-users mailing list
> address@hidden

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]