[OpenSIPS-Users] Prevent re-INVITE to T.38

[Bogdan-Andrei Iancu]

Hi Jeff,

Alice expects just a higher cseq number, not an increment with 1 or any 
step...just higher than the prev one :)

Regards,

Bogdan-Andrei Iancu
OpenSIPS Founder and Developer
http://www.opensips-solutions.com

On 17.03.2014 17:52, Jeff Pyle wrote:
> Hi Bogdan,
>
> Let's say Bob reinvites Alice to T.38 through my proxy.  My proxy 
> declines the reinvite.  That transaction has completed and Bob has 
> incremented his CSeq number.  Now, if Bob sends another in-dialog 
> request (such as a BYE), the CSeq is one higher than Alice is 
> expecting.  That's not a problem?  Alice won't reply with a 400?
>
>
> - Jeff
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 11:24 AM, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu 
> <bogdan at opensips.org <mailto:bogdan at opensips.org>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Jeff,
>
>     This is a false problem - you can simply decline the re-INVITE
>     without breaking anything - each side has its own cseq number, and
>     they are independently increased when a party is generating a new
>     requests.
>
>     So, just decline it and that's it !
>
>     Regards,
>
>     Bogdan-Andrei Iancu
>     OpenSIPS Founder and Developer
>     http://www.opensips-solutions.com
>
>     On 11.03.2014 19:42, Jeff Pyle wrote:
>>     Hi Alexander,
>>
>>     To detect the "image" session in the SDP, you are thinking the
>>     same way that I am.  The problem I see is how to actually reject
>>     the re-INVITE.  If I were to do something like a
>>     sl_send_reply("488", "Not Acceptable Here"), that would work in
>>     the moment, but the CSeq values would be increased by one on side
>>     compared to the other.  That sounds to me like a recipe for
>>     problems in future in-dialog transactions (like BYE).
>>
>>
>>
>>     - Jeff
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 12:58 PM, Alexander Mustafin
>>     <mustafin.aleksandr at gmail.com
>>     <mailto:mustafin.aleksandr at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>         Hi, Jeff.
>>
>>         Maybe stream_exists(regexp) in sipmsgops module will be
>>         useful for you.
>>
>>         Best regards,
>>         Alexander Mustafin
>>         mustafin.aleksandr at gmail.com
>>         <mailto:mustafin.aleksandr at gmail.com>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>         11 марта 2014 г., в 20:07, Jeff Pyle <jpyle at fidelityvoice.com
>>         <mailto:jpyle at fidelityvoice.com>> написал(а):
>>
>>>         Hello,
>>>
>>>         Is there anything I can do at the proxy level to prevent a
>>>         dialog from reinviting to to T.38?  I think I could detect
>>>         the T.38 attributes easily enough and respond with a 488,
>>>         although I'm concerned the CSeq values would be out of
>>>         sequence for the next transaction that did make it through
>>>         the proxy to the far end.  That could cause a problem, no?
>>>
>>>         Is this something that requires a B2BUA?  Is it possible
>>>         from within the OpenSIPS B2B modules to do SDP inspection of
>>>         any sort?
>>>
>>>
>>>         - Jeff
>>>
>>>         _______________________________________________
>>>         Users mailing list
>>>         Users at lists.opensips.org <mailto:Users at lists.opensips.org>
>>>         http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>>
>>
>>         _______________________________________________
>>         Users mailing list
>>         Users at lists.opensips.org <mailto:Users at lists.opensips.org>
>>         http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     Users mailing list
>>     Users at lists.opensips.org  <mailto:Users at lists.opensips.org>
>>     http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensips.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20140317/195861b7/attachment.htm>