[OpenSIPS-Users] "Deploying Websocket support with OpenSIPS and OverSIP" is not correct

[Vlad Paiu]

Hello Iñaki,

Sorry for the very late reply.
Indeed we've noticed that there are some 'bugs' in the OpenSIPS+OverSIP 
tutorial.

I'll get that fixed today, according to your recommendations.
Thanks for the help !

Best Regards,

Vlad Paiu
OpenSIPS Developer
http://www.opensips-solutions.com

On 02.10.2013 12:02, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have some users in OverSIP maillist complaining because the
> documentation about OpenSIPS+OverSIP does not work:
>
>    http://www.opensips.org/Documentation/Tutorials-WebSocket
>
>
> - First of all such a documentation does not mention at all that Path
> support is required in OpenSIPS. I suggest adding the exact module
> configuration lines for adding Path support (note that OverSIP adds
> Path header out of the box when routing a REGISTER).
>
>
> - The doc says:
> "OpenSIPS will have to be configured with NAT support."
>
> This is fully wrong. Instead, OverSIP acts as a RFC 5626 Outbound Edge
> Proxy which deals with the NAT, and OpenSIPS must be configured
> without NAT support at all. Sure.
>
>
> - The documentation leaves the default OverSIP's server.rb routing
> logic which means that OverSIP behaves like a open SIP relay. It could
> be easily configured to force all the traffic coming from WebSocket to
> OpenSIPS via OverSIP::Proxy#route(request, IP, port, transport)
> method:
>
> http://www.oversip.net/documentation/1.4.x/api/sip/proxy/
>
> This is specially useful when OverSIP and OpenSIPS run in the same
> host (possible problems with the local_domain and the default
> OverSIP's server.rb). I strongly suggest that the doc provides a
> server.rb file without the "if request.destination_myself?" block, and
> with a fixed routing to OpenSIPS (no care about the RURI domain, don't
> be an open SIP relay).
>
>
> - And as a simple suggestion, adding a section for configuring JsSIP
> (which is much better than sipML5) would be about adding just 4 lines
> :)
>
>
>
> Thanks a lot.
>
>
>