RE: [reSIProcate] TransportSelector Route Bug
Yes. This is right. Apparently, somebody added in the following code (also
incorrectly) into TransportSelector:
else if (msg->exists(h_Routes) && !msg->header(h_Routes).empty())
{
// put this into the target, in case the send later fails, so we
don't
// lose the target
msg->setForceTarget(msg->header(h_Routes).front().uri());
DebugLog (<< "Looking up dns entries (from route) for " <<
msg->getForceTarget());
result = mDns.lookup(msg->getForceTarget(), handler);
}
You are correct. 3261 is pretty clear about how to handle entries in the
route for both proxy and UA. This should be up in dum. If you're making
changes to this, keep in mind that some of the strict routing stuff is
already in Helper, but you do need to call it from dum.
Jason
> -----Original Message-----
> From: resiprocate-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:resiprocate-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of
> Robert Sparks
> Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 7:04 AM
> To: Derek@xxxxxxxx
> Cc: 'resiprocate'
> Subject: Re: [reSIProcate] TransportSelector Route Bug
>
>
> Derek (and Jason) -
>
> IIRC, the TransportSelector doesn't have enough information to
> pop or not pop (there are application layer checks that have
> to do with whether you are responsible for the URI - there may
> also be interactions with whether you are processing strict or
> loose routes.
>
> >From later in the log:
> > rev 1581: jason | 2003-08-05 10:48:58 -0500 (Tue, 05 Aug 2003) | 2
> > lines
> >
> > don't pop the route in the TransportSelector - this is a TU function
>
> What case did you find that wasn't being handled correctly?
>
> RjS
>
> On Mon, 2004-06-14 at 00:26, Derek MacDonald wrote:
> > Well, the bug that Jason orignallly fixed way back in rep ver# 1407 has
> > recurred.
> >
> > "fixed bug where topmost route wasn't being popped before sending"
> >
> > I fixed it and checked it in, but if somebody thinks that the
> route should
> > not be popped please ping the list and plead your case before
> changing it.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Derek
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: resiprocate-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:resiprocate-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Jason
> > Fischl
> > Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 6:25 PM
> > To: resiprocate
> > Subject: [reSIProcate] bug in Data::find
> >
> >
> > There was a bug in the Data::find method when the offset was non-zero. I
> > fixed it and added a test case.
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > resiprocate-devel mailing list
> > resiprocate-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > https://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/resiprocate-devel
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > resiprocate-devel mailing list
> > resiprocate-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > https://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/resiprocate-devel
>
> _______________________________________________
> resiprocate-devel mailing list
> resiprocate-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/resiprocate-devel
>