Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] B2BUA module question
> The headers that are now taken from the initial message and inserted in > the message sent on the other side are: Supported, Require, > Proxy-Require, Accept and Content-Type. > We can extend the rules action part to include this one of requesting a > certain header to be added since it can indeed be useful. I'd be really happy to see this, as I stated on the dev list. It would be nice if we had a configuration parameter so that all custom headers are passed to the other leg, so OpenSIPS could act as a transparent b2bua :) -- /Saúl http://www.saghul.net | http://www.sipdoc.net ___ Users mailing list Users@lists.opensips.org http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] B2BUA module question
Anca,What I was imaging was something like the dialplan module to perform the rewrite, and the B2BUA module to track was it was originally so the reverse direction doesn't include the translation. That kind of thing. inside -> b2bua + translation ---> outside see's translated TO URI outside with translated TOURI ->b2bua -> inside see's restored TO URI (original TO URI) Forgive me for not entirely understanding the B2BUA scenarios and rules quite yet. ;) -Brett On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Anca Vamanu wrote: > Hi Brett, > > > Brett Nemeroff wrote: > > All, > > Question about the direction of the B2BUA module. I know one of the > > key feature is topology hiding. Does this also occur in the SDP? I > > would expect that it would need to still be paired with something like > > mediaproxy or rtpproxy to achieve topology hiding with SDP as well, is > > this correct? Do you expect the B2BUA module will ever integrate into > > any of the media proxying solutions? > > > As you correctly assumed, the B2BUA implementation in OpenSIPS is only a > signaling B2BUA and it does not deal with sdp. The media will still go > end to end and you need to use something like rtpproxy for a full b2b. > > Also, what's the possibility of doing things like changing headers, > > removing headers and such. For example, internally, I may have an > > "X-Account-Number:" field that is used between servers and I never > > want an request from the outside to ever come in with one of those and > > likewise I don't ever want a request to go out with one of those. I > > know a lot of that can be done in the script already, but I'm > > wondering if the B2BUA portions have any special handling for that > > kind of thing (ie: remove all non-standard headers). Also, there are > > a lot of non-rfc-ish things that I have to do on a regular basis that > > a B2BUA always performs better. For example, I have partners that > > insist on specific formatting of the From or To headers (like adding > > or removing prefixes to from/to headers.. yes.. I know..). > > > The headers that are now taken from the initial message and inserted in > the message sent on the other side are: Supported, Require, > Proxy-Require, Accept and Content-Type. > We can extend the rules action part to include this one of requesting a > certain header to be added since it can indeed be useful. > But the one with formatting the to or from header in a certain way is > quite hard to express as a rule.. > > regards, > Anca > > Thanks! > > -Brett > > > > > > > > ___ > > Users mailing list > > Users@lists.opensips.org > > http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users > > > > > ___ > Users mailing list > Users@lists.opensips.org > http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users > ___ Users mailing list Users@lists.opensips.org http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] B2BUA module question
Hi Brett, Brett Nemeroff wrote: > All, > Question about the direction of the B2BUA module. I know one of the > key feature is topology hiding. Does this also occur in the SDP? I > would expect that it would need to still be paired with something like > mediaproxy or rtpproxy to achieve topology hiding with SDP as well, is > this correct? Do you expect the B2BUA module will ever integrate into > any of the media proxying solutions? > As you correctly assumed, the B2BUA implementation in OpenSIPS is only a signaling B2BUA and it does not deal with sdp. The media will still go end to end and you need to use something like rtpproxy for a full b2b. > Also, what's the possibility of doing things like changing headers, > removing headers and such. For example, internally, I may have an > "X-Account-Number:" field that is used between servers and I never > want an request from the outside to ever come in with one of those and > likewise I don't ever want a request to go out with one of those. I > know a lot of that can be done in the script already, but I'm > wondering if the B2BUA portions have any special handling for that > kind of thing (ie: remove all non-standard headers). Also, there are > a lot of non-rfc-ish things that I have to do on a regular basis that > a B2BUA always performs better. For example, I have partners that > insist on specific formatting of the From or To headers (like adding > or removing prefixes to from/to headers.. yes.. I know..). > The headers that are now taken from the initial message and inserted in the message sent on the other side are: Supported, Require, Proxy-Require, Accept and Content-Type. We can extend the rules action part to include this one of requesting a certain header to be added since it can indeed be useful. But the one with formatting the to or from header in a certain way is quite hard to express as a rule.. regards, Anca > Thanks! > -Brett > > > > ___ > Users mailing list > Users@lists.opensips.org > http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users > ___ Users mailing list Users@lists.opensips.org http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] B2BUA module question
Brett Nemeroff wrote: > Question about the direction of the B2BUA module. I know one of the key > feature is topology hiding. Does this also occur in the SDP? I would > expect that it would need to still be paired with something like > mediaproxy or rtpproxy to achieve topology hiding with SDP as well, is > this correct? Yes. -- Alex Balashov - Principal Evariste Systems Web : http://www.evaristesys.com/ Tel : (+1) (678) 954-0670 Direct : (+1) (678) 954-0671 ___ Users mailing list Users@lists.opensips.org http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
[OpenSIPS-Users] B2BUA module question
All,Question about the direction of the B2BUA module. I know one of the key feature is topology hiding. Does this also occur in the SDP? I would expect that it would need to still be paired with something like mediaproxy or rtpproxy to achieve topology hiding with SDP as well, is this correct? Do you expect the B2BUA module will ever integrate into any of the media proxying solutions? Also, what's the possibility of doing things like changing headers, removing headers and such. For example, internally, I may have an "X-Account-Number:" field that is used between servers and I never want an request from the outside to ever come in with one of those and likewise I don't ever want a request to go out with one of those. I know a lot of that can be done in the script already, but I'm wondering if the B2BUA portions have any special handling for that kind of thing (ie: remove all non-standard headers). Also, there are a lot of non-rfc-ish things that I have to do on a regular basis that a B2BUA always performs better. For example, I have partners that insist on specific formatting of the From or To headers (like adding or removing prefixes to from/to headers.. yes.. I know..). Thanks! -Brett ___ Users mailing list Users@lists.opensips.org http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
