Hi folks
The syn_branch global parameter results in the use of a "synonym"
branch parameter in the Via header for statelessly forwarded requests
as a performance optimisation.
This was originally done by setting branch=0 which, while not strictly
compliant with 3261 (8.1.1.7 and 16.6 item 8), would not cause any
problems with a downstream proxy or UA compliant to either 3261 or
2543 since it does not contain the cookie and is therefore
self-evidently not guaranteed to be unique.
Then a patch was added (commit ebb3b08) to change it from branch=0 to
branch=z9hG4bKcydzigwkX which includes the cookie, thus declaring
itself to be unique when it clearly is not.
This takes the optimisation too far as it deliberately misleads
downstream proxies with regard to the uniqueness of the parameter and
breaks the mechanism in 17.2.3 for identifying unreliable (non-unique)
branch parameters for transaction matching which should then fall back
to header inspection but does not. The result is that unrelated
requests can be identified as duplicates of each other.
Also note 3261 section 16.11 on Stateless Proxy behaviour: "The
requirement for unique branch IDs across space and time applies to
stateless proxies as well."
Has the commit above introduced a bug and should it be reverted?
And should the next major release have a default of syn_branch=0?
Since with syn_branch=1 the branch=0 version has been known to cause
interop issues in the past (see below) and I can confirm the
branch=z9hG4bKcydzigwkX version causes interop issues in the present.
Regards,
Richard
See also these related threads:
[SR-Users] Via header branch parameter in ACK message not unique
http://lists.sip-router.org/pipermail/sr-users/2011-December/071207.html
[SR-Users] "branch" tag in the "Via" header of the ACK message for the re-INVITE
http://lists.kamailio.org/pipermail/sr-users/2012-November/075560.html
[Serusers] branch parameter
http://lists.sip-router.org/pipermail/sr-users/2007-February/060147.html
[SR-Users] about syn_branch
http://lists.sip-router.org/pipermail/sr-users/2011-March/067732.html
[SR-Users] Via branch parameter in end2end ACK
http://lists.sip-router.org/pipermail/sr-users/2011-May/068627.html
[SR-Users] Broken Via/reply-matching for natping OPTION
http://lists.sip-router.org/pipermail/sr-users/2011-April/068340.html
[Serusers] ACK message Via field branch=0 problem
http://lists.sip-router.org/pipermail/sr-users/2004-July/037731.html
Hi,
I have build Kamailio 4.0.1 from source in CentOS 5.8(i386
architecture).I followed all instructions from
http://www.kamailio.org/wiki/install/4.0.x/git.(Though Modules_k directory
is not generated).I then edit kamailio.config file for websocket support as
described in webocket.cfg file in exmples directory.But while starting
kamailio it gives following error
ERROR: load_module: could not open module : libunistring.so.0: cannot
open shared object file: No such file or directory
0(30270) : [cfg.y:3567]: parse error in config file
/usr/local/etc/kamailio/kamailio.cfg, line 318, column 12-57: failed to
load module
I checked websocket.so file in the specified directory and it is
already there.Can you please help me what's rong with it?
please help.
Rupayan Dutta
Hi,
can anyony tell me when will i get the following error : "substr out of
range".
i saw it has something to do with the pv_trans.c file and i saw it there.
but, is it related to "shvset" or to "substr" command
BR,
Uri
Hi,
if I do save(location) when receiving REGISTER, what is the header which
indicates the subscriber for which it will be registered ?
$fu?$au?$tu?
Thanks,
Mino
I would appreciate some help on the following questions I have:
- If I use TLS mutual authentication, do I still need a subscriber password or the TLS successful mutual session setup will assume that the client is "trusted" so it can register what it is asking to register?
- For large deployments, can I issue a single certificate and install it on all my telephone sets making them "trusted" to me or I need one certificate per telephone/subscriber?
- Anyway, can you share your "good practices" advises for large deployment?
- Finally, do you know any free softphone that implements mutual TLS authentication?
Thanks,
Moacir
Hello,
I am testing the xHTTP module on kamailio-3.3 with topology hiding (topoch)
and
I get parsing error for each received HTTP message:
/usr/local/sbin/kamailio[2937]: ERROR: <core> [parser/parse_from.c:60]:
ERROR:parse_from_header: bad msg or missing FROM header
/usr/local/sbin/kamailio[2937]: ERROR: topoh [topoh_mod.c:215]: cannot parse
FROM header
Is it configuration issue?
Thanks,
Julia.
I have a login with iptel. I am trying to set up jitsi or linphone with
someone in argentina. The server sees us both on but we cannot get the
thing to work. Each program shows we are online but there is no way to
connect. I must be doing something stupid.
Thanks, Dave Paxton
6408 Colonial Drive
Boise, ID 83709
208-570-9755
dpaxton(a)me.com
Skype: dpaxton
Hey Guys,
I was wondering if someone can help me with identifying my issue (which
I suspect it as a bug).
I am doing some redirect tests between 2 servers, both running same
Kamailio version - 4.0.0 out of debian packages.
"""
root@IECDev:/home/dan# kamailio -V
version: kamailio 4.0.0 (x86_64/linux)
flags: STATS: Off, USE_IPV6, USE_TCP, USE_TLS, TLS_HOOKS, USE_RAW_SOCKS,
DISABLE_NAGLE, USE_MCAST, DNS_IP_HACK, SHM_MEM, SHM_MMAP, PKG_MALLOC,
USE_FUTEX, FAST_LOCK-ADAPTIVE_WAIT, USE_DNS_CACHE, USE_DNS_FAILOVER,
USE_NAPTR, USE_DST_BLACKLIST, HAVE_RESOLV_RES
ADAPTIVE_WAIT_LOOPS=1024, MAX_RECV_BUFFER_SIZE 262144, MAX_LISTEN 16,
MAX_URI_SIZE 1024, BUF_SIZE 65535, DEFAULT PKG_SIZE 4MB
poll method support: poll, epoll_lt, epoll_et, sigio_rt, select.
id: unknown
compiled on 13:13:24 Mar 29 2013 with gcc 4.7.2
"""
On redirect server I have location stored, doing lookup and right after
using "sl_send_reply("302", "iClass4-AP Redirect");"
Up to information stored in the Contact of redirect request everything
works smooth, the problem which I get is with the information in the
Contact of the redirect:
"""
#
U 2013/05/27 16:55:39.171237 127.0.0.1:5070 -> 10.10.10.21:5060
SIP/2.0 302 iClass4 AP Redirect.
Call-ID: 1886b401c36753c96bb85a0f4ad7ef88@0:0:0:0:0:0:0:0.
CSeq: 2 INVITE.
From: "dan" <sip:dan@iec.itsyscom.com>;tag=9f9fd3ed.
To: <sip:dan@iec.itsyscom.com>;tag=46a6e639fa023622ac1ba4fea686e961.affb.
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 10.10.10.21;branch=z9hG4bK0947.8bc60857.0.
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
10.10.10.154:5060;rport=5060;branch=z9hG4bK-363833-3efe2f43332be9a60ebd1e1aad124280.
Contact:
<sip:dan@10.10.10.141:3072;line=qhjb2bk0;rcv=sip:10.10.10.141:3072>;q=1,
sip:dan@10.10.10.154:5060;transport=udp;registering_acc=iec_itsyscom_com.
Server: iClass4-AP 4.0.0.
Content-Length: 0.
"""
It appears that the information of the first contact is correctly
encapsulated but the second (out of first branch) not.
Due to this in the server capturing the redirect I will only have first
contact correctly written in the ruri and second one partially. Example
of loging this:
"""
May 27 16:55:39 IECDev /usr/sbin/kamailio[3556]: ERROR: <script>:
Extracted destination set: Contact: <sip:dan@10.10.10.154:5060>;q=0.01,
<sip:dan@10.10.10.141:3072;line=qhjb2bk0;rcv=sip:10.10.10.141:3072>;q=1,
ru: sip:dan@iec.itsyscom.com, du: sip:127.0.0.1:5070
May 27 16:55:39 IECDev /usr/sbin/kamailio[3556]: ERROR: <script>:
Branches: <sip:dan@10.10.10.154:5060>;q=0.01,
<sip:dan@10.10.10.141:3072;line=qhjb2bk0;rcv=sip:10.10.10.141:3072>;q=1
""".
I would suspect the redirect function not properly inserting the content
of each contact uri within it's own <> boundaries but I would appreciate
a confirmation on this from someone more experienced with Kamailio's code.
Thanks in advance for any tip!
DanB
Hello,
I read in the documentation that Kamailio SCTP supports multi homing.
Does anyone know how I can configure this?
Thanks in advance,
--Jignesh Gandhi
