As I could notice upon a quick look, there seems to be two calls -- two
INVITE requests having same call id but different cseq. Can you confirm
this is the case? Because the capture doesn't seem to have all the
incoming/outgoing messages, some are missing.
Cheers,
Daniel
On 26.04.17 12:59, Sergey Basov wrote:
You give to us very hard callflow...
Without any pauses between responces..
Some requests go through 127.0.0.1... But responces from 127.0.0.1 not present.
There are peers from which invites not present in dump. I can not see
ful path of the initial Invite, but there is responses.
I will send dump in next email directly.
--
Best regards,
Sergey Basov e-mail: sergey.v.basov(a)gmail.com
2017-04-26 11:01 GMT+03:00 Pete Kelly <pkelly(a)gmail.com>om>:
> Attached is the pcap from latest nightly.
>
> As you can see (frame 21) the ACK is incorrect, I believe it should specify
> all the hops from the 200OK (frame 16) so that the hop by hop ACK can be
> routed via the proxy chain.
>
> topoh module works fine.
>
> Pete
>
> On 26 April 2017 at 05:18, Sergey Basov <sergey.v.basov(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> I dont know how nightly builds are done.
>>
>> Just try with latest 5.0.1 nightly and send new dump.
>>
>> As I understud topos module done to remove record-route headers to hide
>> topology... Am I wright, Daniel?
>>
>> And try to disable topos module and enable topoh module. Will it all work
>> as you expecrs?
>>
>> --
>> WBR
>> Sergey Basov
>>
>> 25 апр. 2017 г. 11:31 PM пользователь "Pete Kelly"
<pkelly(a)gmail.com>
>> написал:
>>
>>> I have tried with 5.0.1 from today (25th April).
>>>
>>> Are you saying build for 26th will have some fixes?
>>>
>>> On 25 April 2017 at 18:59, Sergey Basov <sergey.v.basov(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>> Actualy latest fixes to 180/183/200, ACK and memory leak was pushed to
>>>> 5.0 and master branch.
>>>>
>>>> So, please try with latest 5.0.1 nightly.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> WBR
>>>> Sergey Basov
>>>>
>>>> 25 апр. 2017 г. 8:55 PM пользователь "Pete Kelly"
<pkelly(a)gmail.com>
>>>> написал:
>>>>
>>>>> Call is with sipp but first goes through another SBC to clean up the
>>>>> SIP (in case of problems with sipp via headers etc).
>>>>>
>>>>> The traces I've done are actually with 4.4.
>>>>>
>>>>> Will they be OK or would you prefer 5.0.1? The problem is exactly
the
>>>>> same on both.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 25 April 2017 at 16:25, Sergey Basov
<sergey.v.basov(a)gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can you send dump of the call with kamailio 5.0.1 nightly?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And does you make call using sipp?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> WBR
>>>>>> Sergey Basov
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 25 апр. 2017 г. 5:57 PM пользователь "Pete Kelly"
<pkelly(a)gmail.com>
>>>>>> написал:
>>>>>>> Looks like from last night:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 5.0.1+0~20170425013247.36+trusty
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 25 April 2017 at 15:42, Daniel-Constantin Mierla
>>>>>>> <miconda(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> to be sure, it is 5.0.1 build from last night or quite
recent? There
>>>>>>>> were some fixes in the past days to topos module.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>> Daniel
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 25.04.17 15:59, Pete Kelly wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Daniel
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sorry for the delayed response to this, the ACK is for a
200OK yes
>>>>>>>> and the problem still persists in latest 4.4 and the
5.0.1 nightly build.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have all DB entries/kam logs/pcap files.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you check the attached pcap, 192.168.70.70 and
192.168.252.70 are
>>>>>>>> the same instance of Kamailio, it is being used to bridge
the 2 networks.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Frame 34 shows the 200OK with lots of Record-Route etc,
and frame 35
>>>>>>>> shows topos in action.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> However the ACK that is relayed in Frame 38 seems to be
missing all
>>>>>>>> the Route information that was supplied in the 200OK,
this causes the ACK to
>>>>>>>> be relayed directly to the Contact, breaking the proxy
chain.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Pete
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 22 February 2017 at 18:31, Daniel-Constantin Mierla
>>>>>>>> <miconda(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> is the ACK for 200ok? Or an ack for a negative
response?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Can you get a pcap for such situation with all
messages related to
>>>>>>>>> the call?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>> Daniel
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 22/02/2017 17:20, Pete Kelly wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I am using the topos module when bridging 2 networks
with Kamailio.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The INVITE/200OK part of the transaction is working
fine (i.e. the
>>>>>>>>> Contact on both sides matches correctly the
corresponding network).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> However when the ACK is sent into Kamailio, instead
of realising
>>>>>>>>> the next hop is myself and skipping it, Kamailio is
sending the ACK directly
>>>>>>>>> to itself as a packet, causing the call setup to
break.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Does anyone have any advice for this situation?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) -
sr-users mailing
>>>>>>>>> list
>>>>>>>>> sr-users(a)lists.sip-router.org
>>>>>>>>>
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Daniel-Constantin Mierla
>>>>>>>>>
www.twitter.com/miconda --
www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
>>>>>>>>> Kamailio Advanced Training - Mar 6-8 (Europe) and Mar
20-22 (USA) -
>>>>>>>>>
www.asipto.com
>>>>>>>>> Kamailio World Conference - May 8-10, 2017 -
www.kamailioworld.com
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Daniel-Constantin Mierla
>>>>>>>>
www.twitter.com/miconda --
www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
>>>>>>>> Kamailio Advanced Training - May 22-24 (USA) -
www.asipto.com
>>>>>>>> Kamailio World Conference - May 8-10, 2017 -
www.kamailioworld.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
>>>>>>> sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org
>>>>>>>
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
>>>>>>>