[OpenSIPS-Users] Request-Disposition: no-fork

[Bogdan-Andrei Iancu]

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:hobe69 at hotmail.com>
> *Sent: *Tuesday, 11 October 2022 08:09
> *To: *Bogdan-Andrei Iancu <mailto:bogdan at opensips.org>; OpenSIPS users 
> mailling list <mailto:users at 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:bogdan at opensips.org>
> *Sent: *Tuesday, 11 October 2022 01:49
> *To: *OpenSIPS users mailling list <mailto:users at lists.opensips.org>; 
> Bela H <mailto:hobe69 at 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 at lists.opensips.org  <mailto:Users at lists.opensips.org>
>
>     http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users  <http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensips.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20221011/590b494b/attachment-0001.html>