Hello,
I have found that topoh does not seem to operate correctly on
locally-generated requests, such as dialog timeout-fired BYEs.
e.g.
Nov 17 17:20:16 centosity6 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[10357]: INFO:
[R-TM-LOCAL-REQUEST:1-4289383-6930886-1692777-3284@127.0.1.1] Local
request BYE to sip:sipp@127.0.1.1:5060
Nov 17 17:20:16 centosity6 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[10357]: INFO:
[R-TM-LOCAL-REQUEST:1-4289383-6930886-1692777-3284@127.0.1.1] Local
request BYE to sip:172.30.110.5:5060;transport=UDP
Nov 17 17:20:16 centosity6 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[10348]: ERROR: topoh
[th_mask.c:165]: th_mask_decode(): invalid input
string"1-4289383-6930886-1692777-3284(a)127.0.1.1"
Nov 17 17:20:16 centosity6 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[10348]: ERROR: topoh
[th_msg.c:484]: th_unmask_callid(): cannot decode callid
You can see these BYEs are not TOPOH'd at all:
17:23:34.097128 IP 172.30.110.4.sip > 127.0.1.1.sip: SIP, length: 346
E..v....@.?]..n..........b..BYE sip:sipp@127.0.1.1:5060 SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
172.30.110.4;branch=z9hG4bK00ac.30df1375000000000000000000000000.0
To: <sip:4916095083616@127.0.1.1:5060>;tag=3287SIPpTag001
From: <sip:17069950290@172.30.110.4:5060>;tag=2117SIPpTag015
CSeq: 1 BYE
Call-ID: 1-4289383-6930886-1692777-3287(a)127.0.1.1
Content-Length: 0
Max-Forwards: 70
17:23:34.097239 IP 172.30.110.4.sip > 172.30.110.5.sip: SIP, length: 358
E.......@.V...n...n......n5.BYE sip:172.30.110.5:5060;transport=UDP SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
172.30.110.4;branch=z9hG4bKdf9c.08ed9677000000000000000000000000.0
To: <sip:17069950290@172.30.110.4:5060>;tag=2117SIPpTag015
From: <sip:4916095083616@127.0.1.1:5060>;tag=3287SIPpTag001
CSeq: 2 BYE
Call-ID: 1-4289383-6930886-1692777-3287(a)127.0.1.1
Content-Length: 0
Max-Forwards: 70
in contrast to the other messages in this dialog:
7:23:30.871062 IP 172.30.110.5.sip > 172.30.110.4.sip: SIP, length: 844
E..h!5@.@.. ..n...n......Th.SIP/2.0 200 OK
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
172.30.110.4;branch=z9hG4bK00ac.127fd0993a0e4c8a82474038472e09d2.0,
SIP/2.0/UDP
172.30.110.4;branch=z9hG4bKsr-goq-nEDchKUa9vuehzD2nruchwxHmrgFJru63LarksqBks-Uhz3WnrhFnrPHhKxWmd9D0s97YrRS3LvcjBeUXrqi9E9SwWoEhre2nzPRhu**
From: sipp <sip:4916095083616@172.30.110.4>;tag=3287SIPpTag001
To: 17069950290 <sip:17069950290@172.30.110.4:5060>;tag=2117SIPpTag015
Call-ID: CSEVhwoohreOhEeEnzjOhEuxmGjRhzjOhr32JWoEhre2-GPWJWxFnrPch-**
Record-Route:
<sip:172.30.110.4;lr=on;ftag=3287SIPpTag001;fromcor=ejFwbUZxUmpUUFNBejFwbUZxUm9RUFBfZS5wZ111ZFo-;dlgcor=9c9.77a1>
CSeq: 1 INVITE
Contact: <sip:172.30.110.5:5060;transport=UDP>
Content-Type: application/sdp
Content-Length: 135
v=0
o=user1 53655765 2353687637 IN IP4 172.30.110.5
s=-
c=IN IP4 172.30.110.5
t=0 0
m=audio 6000 RTP/AVP 0
a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000
Maybe this is not possible to fix because of where topoh intercepts the
messages (transparently to the config script writer) in relation to how
the TM API is used to generate spoof requests. I just thought I would
report it.
--
Alex Balashov - Principal
Evariste Systems LLC
235 E Ponce de Leon Ave
Suite 106
Decatur, GA 30030
United States
Tel: +1-678-954-0670
Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/, http://www.alexbalashov.com/
Hello,
I have found that topoh does not seem to operate correctly on
locally-generated requests, such as dialog timeout-fired BYEs.
e.g.
Nov 17 17:20:16 centosity6 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[10357]: INFO:
[R-TM-LOCAL-REQUEST:1-4289383-6930886-1692777-3284@127.0.1.1] Local
request BYE to sip:sipp@127.0.1.1:5060
Nov 17 17:20:16 centosity6 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[10357]: INFO:
[R-TM-LOCAL-REQUEST:1-4289383-6930886-1692777-3284@127.0.1.1] Local
request BYE to sip:172.30.110.5:5060;transport=UDP
Nov 17 17:20:16 centosity6 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[10348]: ERROR: topoh
[th_mask.c:165]: th_mask_decode(): invalid input
string"1-4289383-6930886-1692777-3284(a)127.0.1.1"
Nov 17 17:20:16 centosity6 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[10348]: ERROR: topoh
[th_msg.c:484]: th_unmask_callid(): cannot decode callid
You can see these BYEs are not TOPOH'd at all:
17:23:34.097128 IP 172.30.110.4.sip > 127.0.1.1.sip: SIP, length: 346
E..v....@.?]..n..........b..BYE sip:sipp@127.0.1.1:5060 SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
172.30.110.4;branch=z9hG4bK00ac.30df1375000000000000000000000000.0
To: <sip:4916095083616@127.0.1.1:5060>;tag=3287SIPpTag001
From: <sip:17069950290@172.30.110.4:5060>;tag=2117SIPpTag015
CSeq: 1 BYE
Call-ID: 1-4289383-6930886-1692777-3287(a)127.0.1.1
Content-Length: 0
Max-Forwards: 70
17:23:34.097239 IP 172.30.110.4.sip > 172.30.110.5.sip: SIP, length: 358
E.......@.V...n...n......n5.BYE sip:172.30.110.5:5060;transport=UDP SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
172.30.110.4;branch=z9hG4bKdf9c.08ed9677000000000000000000000000.0
To: <sip:17069950290@172.30.110.4:5060>;tag=2117SIPpTag015
From: <sip:4916095083616@127.0.1.1:5060>;tag=3287SIPpTag001
CSeq: 2 BYE
Call-ID: 1-4289383-6930886-1692777-3287(a)127.0.1.1
Content-Length: 0
Max-Forwards: 70
in contrast to the other messages in this dialog:
7:23:30.871062 IP 172.30.110.5.sip > 172.30.110.4.sip: SIP, length: 844
E..h!5@.@.. ..n...n......Th.SIP/2.0 200 OK
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
172.30.110.4;branch=z9hG4bK00ac.127fd0993a0e4c8a82474038472e09d2.0,
SIP/2.0/UDP
172.30.110.4;branch=z9hG4bKsr-goq-nEDchKUa9vuehzD2nruchwxHmrgFJru63LarksqBks-Uhz3WnrhFnrPHhKxWmd9D0s97YrRS3LvcjBeUXrqi9E9SwWoEhre2nzPRhu**
From: sipp <sip:4916095083616@172.30.110.4>;tag=3287SIPpTag001
To: 17069950290 <sip:17069950290@172.30.110.4:5060>;tag=2117SIPpTag015
Call-ID: CSEVhwoohreOhEeEnzjOhEuxmGjRhzjOhr32JWoEhre2-GPWJWxFnrPch-**
Record-Route:
<sip:172.30.110.4;lr=on;ftag=3287SIPpTag001;fromcor=ejFwbUZxUmpUUFNBejFwbUZxUm9RUFBfZS5wZ111ZFo-;dlgcor=9c9.77a1>
CSeq: 1 INVITE
Contact: <sip:172.30.110.5:5060;transport=UDP>
Content-Type: application/sdp
Content-Length: 135
v=0
o=user1 53655765 2353687637 IN IP4 172.30.110.5
s=-
c=IN IP4 172.30.110.5
t=0 0
m=audio 6000 RTP/AVP 0
a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000
Maybe this is not possible to fix because of where topoh intercepts the
messages (transparently to the config script writer) in relation to how
the TM API is used to generate spoof requests. I just thought I would
report it.
---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/issues/15
First of all excuse me if in the previous pull request I didn't follow guidelines by devel-git-commit guide :)
As anticipated in the previous request I made some changes to dispatcher module for counting successful ping requests before moving a destination from inactive to active state.
While doing this changes I noticed some misspelled variables (in code and docs too) and I fixed them. So I've used similar variables (with the corrected words) also for the new feature I developed.
In the case we leave the old variables introducing the new one we will have in the code:
"ds_probing_threshhold" vs "ds_inactive_threshold"
This behaviour could be confusing while editing the configuration file and also while reading the code.
As you requested I've separated the misspelled fixes in two commits one for the code and one for the docs.
To this pull request will follow the one with the changes developing the new feature.
You can merge this Pull Request by running:
git pull https://github.com/alezzandro/kamailio master
Or you can view, comment on it, or merge it online at:
https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/pull/13
-- Commit Summary --
* dispatcher: Fixing misspelled words in some code's variables
* dispatcher: Fixing misspelled words in some docs
-- File Changes --
M modules/dispatcher/README (12)
M modules/dispatcher/config.c (4)
M modules/dispatcher/config.h (2)
M modules/dispatcher/dispatch.c (5)
M modules/dispatcher/dispatch.h (3)
M modules/dispatcher/dispatcher.c (11)
M modules/dispatcher/doc/dispatcher_admin.xml (4)
-- Patch Links --
https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/pull/13.patchhttps://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/pull/13.diff
---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/pull/13
Hi All,
Can anyone see a problem with doing (something like) the following, to
handle the situation like
http://lists.sip-router.org/pipermail/sr-users/2014-October/085251.html?
Admittedly, it is probably a less common use case, but it has been raised
several times on the list so I believe it is a genuine one.
diff --git a/modules/registrar/lookup.c b/modules/registrar/lookup.c
index 794d968..66730b4 100644
--- a/modules/registrar/lookup.c
+++ b/modules/registrar/lookup.c
@@ -41,6 +41,7 @@
#include "../../action.h"
#include "../../mod_fix.h"
#include "../../parser/parse_rr.h"
+#include "../../forward.h"
#include "../usrloc/usrloc.h"
#include "common.h"
#include "regtime.h"
@@ -121,6 +122,7 @@ int lookup_helper(struct sip_msg* _m, udomain_t* _d,
str* _uri, int _mode)
sr_xavp_t *list=NULL;
str xname = {"ruid", 4};
sr_xval_t xval;
+ sip_uri_t path_uri;
ret = -1;
@@ -265,6 +267,14 @@ int lookup_helper(struct sip_msg* _m, udomain_t* _d,
str* _uri, int _mode)
ret = -3;
goto done;
}
+ if (parse_uri(path_dst.s, path_dst.len, &path_uri)
< 0){
+ LM_ERR("failed to parse the Path URI\n");
+ ret = -3;
+ goto done;
+ }
+ }
+ /* Only use path-uri if non-local */
+ if (path_uri.host.s && !check_self(&(path_uri.host), 0, 0))
{
if (set_path_vector(_m, &ptr->path) < 0) {
LM_ERR("failed to set path vector\n");
ret = -3;
The above needs to be repeated in lookup_branches function of same file,
but I wanted to check others' opinions first.
Best regards,
Charles
--
www.sipcentric.com
Follow us on twitter @sipcentric <http://twitter.com/sipcentric>
Sipcentric Ltd. Company registered in England & Wales no. 7365592. Registered
office: Faraday Wharf, Innovation Birmingham Campus, Holt Street,
Birmingham Science Park, Birmingham B7 4BB.
Hi,
if we return val.flags = PV_VAL_NULL, does the == $null comparison work ?
script example
my_function("some param","$var(result)");
if( $var(result) == $null {
do something
}
in code => dst_pv->setf(msg, &dst_pv->pvp, (int)EQ_T, &dst_val);
should the comparison work if we set dst_val.flags = PV_VAL_NULL ?
if( $(myPvar{my.mytransform,transformParameter}) == $null) {
....
}
should this work if the transform returns val.flags = PV_VAL_NULL ?
thank you
Hi,
in some function that return a value with PV_VAL_PKG or PV_VAL_SHM, the allocated memory is supposed to be freed by core ?
script example
my_function("some param","$var(result)");
in code =>
dst_val->flags = PV_VAL_STR | PV_VAL_PKG;
dst_pv->setf(msg, &dst_pv->pvp, (int)EQ_T, &dst_val);
when $var(result) is freed, will it free the allocated string ?
if( $(myPvar{my.mytransform,transformParameter}) == $null) {
$var(x) = $(myPvar{my.mytransform,transformParameter});
}
in code =>
dst_val->flags = PV_VAL_STR | PV_VAL_PKG;
will the memory allocated be freed in the comparison line ?
will the memory allocated be freed when $var(x) is freed ?
thank you
A very dynamic 2014 for Kamailio has reached its end! Thank you everyone
for contributing to it!
Looking forward to 2015, a lot of new features in Kamailio and new
contributors! I wish a healthy and prosperous year to all Kamailio
friends, hoping to meet many of you at Kamailio World Conference and
other events around the globe!
Happy New Year!
Daniel
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
THIS IS AN AUTOMATED MESSAGE, DO NOT REPLY.
The following task is now closed:
FS#461 - textopsx : hf_value and hf_value2 can not parse authorize header
User who did this - Daniel-Constantin Mierla (miconda)
Reason for closing: Not a bug
More information can be found at the following URL:
https://sip-router.org/tracker/index.php?do=details&task_id=461
You are receiving this message because you have requested it from the Flyspray bugtracking system. If you did not expect this message or don't want to receive mails in future, you can change your notification settings at the URL shown above.