reSIProcate

Mailing Lists

Source Code

Google Search:



< Previous by Date Date Index Next by Date >
  Thread Index Next in Thread >

Re: [reSIProcate] Many DUM -> one SipStack... Does it actually work??

Byron,
 
I looked at the example you listed and I'm not clear on how I would be able to to get the msgs to route correctly. The only true difference between the UAs is their AOR value. Is there a way to use the
MessageFilterRules to force the msg to go to the correct UA based on the TO address??
Or something else?
 
Suggestions??
 
Bill Kovar
Avaya Inc.
(732) 852-2609
 

From: Byron Campen [mailto:bcampen@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, August 07, 2006 3:44 PM
To: Kovar, William (Bill)
Cc: resiprocate-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [reSIProcate] Many DUM -> one SipStack... Does it actually work??

The TuSelector in the resip stack uses TransactionUser::isForMe(SipMessage& msg) to determine which TU to send the message to. The TuSelector will hand the message to the first TU that returns true when isForMe is called. You can influence how a given DUM answers isForMe by registering MessageFilterRules with that particular instance of DUM. (see repro/repro.cxx for an example of how this can be done) 

Best regards,
Byron Campen

All,
 
Although I was told several months ago that this should work, I am seeing problems with the same SipStack associated with 2 different UAs.
 
The Registration of each UA seems to get routed correctly, i.e. the OnSuccess() for the Register for a specific UA is being delivered to the correct UA.
 
However, when an INVITE is sent to a particular URI, it goes to the first UA that was associated with the SipStack.
 
Any thoughts?? It seems the transaction layer is tied to IP:PORT somehow which could be a cause of this problem...
 
Bill Kovar
Avaya Inc.
(732) 852-2609
 
_______________________________________________
resiprocate-devel mailing list