Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] Request-Disposition: no-fork
That's only for BLF (dialog/info presence), nothing to do with the calling.
Regards,
Bogdan-Andrei Iancu
OpenSIPS Founder and Developer
https://www.opensips-solutions.com
OpenSIPS Summit 27-30 Sept 2022, Athens
https://www.opensips.org/events/Summit-2022Athens/
On 10/10/22 10:13 PM, Bela H wrote:
Or is the dialoginfo_set_branch_callee(callee) function the key here?
*From: *Bela H <mailto:hob...@hotmail.com>
*Sent: *Tuesday, 11 October 2022 08:09
*To: *Bogdan-Andrei Iancu <mailto:bog...@opensips.org>; OpenSIPS users
mailling list <mailto:users@lists.opensips.org>
*Subject: *Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] Request-Disposition: no-fork
Thanks Bogdan!
However, I am talking about serial forking, call forwarding busy/no
answer scenario.
Is there a way to avoid that in the cfg without messing up with the to
tags?
How do I achieve “proxy to only a single address ("no-fork")”?
According to fork-directive in
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3841#section-9.1.
Cheers,
Bela
*From: *Bogdan-Andrei Iancu <mailto:bog...@opensips.org>
*Sent: *Tuesday, 11 October 2022 01:49
*To: *OpenSIPS users mailling list <mailto:users@lists.opensips.org>;
Bela H <mailto:hob...@hotmail.com>
*Subject: *Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] Request-Disposition: no-fork
Hi Bela,
What you are trying to do (messing with the TO-tags) is a bad idea, as
you will be breaking the upstream parallel forking.
If the GW does not support forking, what you can do is to avoid doing
parallel forking in your cfg (like when routing to users via lookup).
You do not need any special support.
Best regards,
Bogdan-Andrei Iancu
OpenSIPS Founder and Developer
https://www.opensips-solutions.com <https://www.opensips-solutions.com>
OpenSIPS Summit 27-30 Sept 2022, Athens
https://www.opensips.org/events/Summit-2022Athens/
<https://www.opensips.org/events/Summit-2022Athens/>
On 9/29/22 7:10 AM, Bela H wrote:
Hello,
I have call forwarding busy/no answer scenario: A number is from a
gateway, B and C numbers are our own subs.
The gateway is sending us the INVITE message with
“Request-Disposition: no-fork” header field.
That means we must use one dialog for the mentioned scenario.
Currently the To tag we are sending to the GW in the first 180
ringing/181 Call is being forwarded messages are different to the
To tag in the second 180 ringing and 200 OK (SDP).
Gateway OpenSips
INVITE
-->
100 GIVING IT A TRY
<-- -
180 RINGING
<- ---
181 CALL IS BEING FORWARDED
<- ---
180 RINGING
<- ---
200 OK (SDP)
<- ---
What would be the easiest way from OpenSIPS to send the same To
tag (it should be the same from the first 180 ringing through to
the 200 OK) and using one dialog for this scenario?
Cheers,
Bela
___
Users mailing list
Users@lists.opensips.org <mailto:Users@lists.opensips.org>
http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
<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] Request-Disposition: no-fork
Hi Bela,
If the directive is indicated in the INVITE, simply avoid doing any
forking in your cfg, nothing more.
Regards,
Bogdan-Andrei Iancu
OpenSIPS Founder and Developer
https://www.opensips-solutions.com
OpenSIPS Summit 27-30 Sept 2022, Athens
https://www.opensips.org/events/Summit-2022Athens/
On 10/10/22 10:06 PM, Bela H wrote:
Thanks Bogdan!
However, I am talking about serial forking, call forwarding busy/no
answer scenario.
Is there a way to avoid that in the cfg without messing up with the to
tags?
How do I achieve “proxy to only a single address ("no-fork")”?
According to fork-directive in
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3841#section-9.1.
Cheers,
Bela
*From: *Bogdan-Andrei Iancu <mailto:bog...@opensips.org>
*Sent: *Tuesday, 11 October 2022 01:49
*To: *OpenSIPS users mailling list <mailto:users@lists.opensips.org>;
Bela H <mailto:hob...@hotmail.com>
*Subject: *Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] Request-Disposition: no-fork
Hi Bela,
What you are trying to do (messing with the TO-tags) is a bad idea, as
you will be breaking the upstream parallel forking.
If the GW does not support forking, what you can do is to avoid doing
parallel forking in your cfg (like when routing to users via lookup).
You do not need any special support.
Best regards,
Bogdan-Andrei Iancu
OpenSIPS Founder and Developer
https://www.opensips-solutions.com <https://www.opensips-solutions.com>
OpenSIPS Summit 27-30 Sept 2022, Athens
https://www.opensips.org/events/Summit-2022Athens/
<https://www.opensips.org/events/Summit-2022Athens/>
On 9/29/22 7:10 AM, Bela H wrote:
Hello,
I have call forwarding busy/no answer scenario: A number is from a
gateway, B and C numbers are our own subs.
The gateway is sending us the INVITE message with
“Request-Disposition: no-fork” header field.
That means we must use one dialog for the mentioned scenario.
Currently the To tag we are sending to the GW in the first 180
ringing/181 Call is being forwarded messages are different to the
To tag in the second 180 ringing and 200 OK (SDP).
Gateway OpenSips
INVITE
-->
100 GIVING IT A TRY
<-- -
180 RINGING
<- ---
181 CALL IS BEING FORWARDED
<- ---
180 RINGING
<- ---
200 OK (SDP)
<- ---
What would be the easiest way from OpenSIPS to send the same To
tag (it should be the same from the first 180 ringing through to
the 200 OK) and using one dialog for this scenario?
Cheers,
Bela
___
Users mailing list
Users@lists.opensips.org <mailto:Users@lists.opensips.org>
http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
<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] Request-Disposition: no-fork
Or is the dialoginfo_set_branch_callee(callee) function the key here?
From: Bela H<mailto:hob...@hotmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 11 October 2022 08:09
To: Bogdan-Andrei Iancu<mailto:bog...@opensips.org>; OpenSIPS users mailling
list<mailto:users@lists.opensips.org>
Subject: Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] Request-Disposition: no-fork
Thanks Bogdan!
However, I am talking about serial forking, call forwarding busy/no answer
scenario.
Is there a way to avoid that in the cfg without messing up with the to tags?
How do I achieve “proxy to only a single address ("no-fork")”?
According to fork-directive in
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3841#section-9.1.
Cheers,
Bela
From: Bogdan-Andrei Iancu<mailto:bog...@opensips.org>
Sent: Tuesday, 11 October 2022 01:49
To: OpenSIPS users mailling list<mailto:users@lists.opensips.org>; Bela
H<mailto:hob...@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] Request-Disposition: no-fork
Hi Bela,
What you are trying to do (messing with the TO-tags) is a bad idea, as you will
be breaking the upstream parallel forking.
If the GW does not support forking, what you can do is to avoid doing parallel
forking in your cfg (like when routing to users via lookup). You do not need
any special support.
Best regards,
Bogdan-Andrei Iancu
OpenSIPS Founder and Developer
https://www.opensips-solutions.com
OpenSIPS Summit 27-30 Sept 2022, Athens
https://www.opensips.org/events/Summit-2022Athens/
On 9/29/22 7:10 AM, Bela H wrote:
Hello,
I have call forwarding busy/no answer scenario: A number is from a gateway, B
and C numbers are our own subs.
The gateway is sending us the INVITE message with “Request-Disposition:
no-fork” header field.
That means we must use one dialog for the mentioned scenario.
Currently the To tag we are sending to the GW in the first 180 ringing/181 Call
is being forwarded messages are different to the To tag in the second 180
ringing and 200 OK (SDP).
Gateway OpenSips
INVITE
-->
100 GIVING IT A TRY
<-- -
180 RINGING
<- ---
181 CALL IS BEING FORWARDED
<- ---
180 RINGING
<- ---
200 OK (SDP)
<- ---
What would be the easiest way from OpenSIPS to send the same To tag (it should
be the same from the first 180 ringing through to the 200 OK) and using one
dialog for this scenario?
Cheers,
Bela
___
Users mailing list
Users@lists.opensips.org<mailto: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] Request-Disposition: no-fork
Thanks Bogdan!
However, I am talking about serial forking, call forwarding busy/no answer
scenario.
Is there a way to avoid that in the cfg without messing up with the to tags?
How do I achieve “proxy to only a single address ("no-fork")”?
According to fork-directive in
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3841#section-9.1.
Cheers,
Bela
From: Bogdan-Andrei Iancu<mailto:bog...@opensips.org>
Sent: Tuesday, 11 October 2022 01:49
To: OpenSIPS users mailling list<mailto:users@lists.opensips.org>; Bela
H<mailto:hob...@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] Request-Disposition: no-fork
Hi Bela,
What you are trying to do (messing with the TO-tags) is a bad idea, as you will
be breaking the upstream parallel forking.
If the GW does not support forking, what you can do is to avoid doing parallel
forking in your cfg (like when routing to users via lookup). You do not need
any special support.
Best regards,
Bogdan-Andrei Iancu
OpenSIPS Founder and Developer
https://www.opensips-solutions.com
OpenSIPS Summit 27-30 Sept 2022, Athens
https://www.opensips.org/events/Summit-2022Athens/
On 9/29/22 7:10 AM, Bela H wrote:
Hello,
I have call forwarding busy/no answer scenario: A number is from a gateway, B
and C numbers are our own subs.
The gateway is sending us the INVITE message with “Request-Disposition:
no-fork” header field.
That means we must use one dialog for the mentioned scenario.
Currently the To tag we are sending to the GW in the first 180 ringing/181 Call
is being forwarded messages are different to the To tag in the second 180
ringing and 200 OK (SDP).
Gateway OpenSips
INVITE
-->
100 GIVING IT A TRY
<-- -
180 RINGING
<- ---
181 CALL IS BEING FORWARDED
<- ---
180 RINGING
<- ---
200 OK (SDP)
<- ---
What would be the easiest way from OpenSIPS to send the same To tag (it should
be the same from the first 180 ringing through to the 200 OK) and using one
dialog for this scenario?
Cheers,
Bela
___
Users mailing list
Users@lists.opensips.org<mailto: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] Request-Disposition: no-fork
Hi Bela, What you are trying to do (messing with the TO-tags) is a bad idea, as you will be breaking the upstream parallel forking. If the GW does not support forking, what you can do is to avoid doing parallel forking in your cfg (like when routing to users via lookup). You do not need any special support. Best regards, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu OpenSIPS Founder and Developer https://www.opensips-solutions.com OpenSIPS Summit 27-30 Sept 2022, Athens https://www.opensips.org/events/Summit-2022Athens/ On 9/29/22 7:10 AM, Bela H wrote: Hello, I have call forwarding busy/no answer scenario: A number is from a gateway, B and C numbers are our own subs. The gateway is sending us the INVITE message with “Request-Disposition: no-fork” header field. That means we must use one dialog for the mentioned scenario. Currently the To tag we are sending to the GW in the first 180 ringing/181 Call is being forwarded messages are different to the To tag in the second 180 ringing and 200 OK (SDP). Gateway OpenSips INVITE --> 100 GIVING IT A TRY <-- - 180 RINGING <- --- 181 CALL IS BEING FORWARDED <- --- 180 RINGING <- --- 200 OK (SDP) <- --- What would be the easiest way from OpenSIPS to send the same To tag (it should be the same from the first 180 ringing through to the 200 OK) and using one dialog for this scenario? Cheers, Bela ___ 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
