15 Feb
2004
15 Feb
'04
10:42 p.m.
At 08:46 PM 2/15/2004, Samy Touati wrote:
Hi,
I do have the following situation:
UA1 calls UA2 going through ser 0.8.12. All signaling is Recourd Routed and go through
ser.
UA2 doesn�t answer and I do have a t_on_failure to go to UA3.
UA3 receives INVITES from ser, and answer with a 200/OK with sdp, this messages goes
through ser which forward it to UA1.
UA1 sends an ACK to ser having this in message:
Session Initiation Protocol
Request line: ACK sip:ua3@22.2.4.193:5071 SIP/2.0
Method: ACK
Message Header
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 2.20.64.193:5063;branch=z9hG4bk-7f415771
From: test1 <sip:ua1@vocal.ipsound.net>;tag=eb646133bf338b12
To: <sip:ua2@vocal.ipsound.net>;tag=as47221fa0
Call-ID: a66804e6-5ac924fd(a)142.133.80.102
CSeq: 102 ACK
Max-Forwards: 70
Route: <sip:sip-proxy@ser-domain.com;ftag=eb646133bf338b12;lr=on>
Proxy-Authorization: Digest username="
Contact: ua1 <sip:ua1@24.202.64.193:5063>
User-Agent: Sipura/SPA2000-1.0.10
Content-Length: 0
Ser is supposed to follow the route, and ends up looking into the location table and
re-forwards the request to UA2 again (even if it already timed out once).
Interesting -- it looks like properly generated ACK, except the URI in Route
has some strange value -- I mean SER generates the URI as
sip:<username_from_INVITE>@<SER_IP>;ftag=...
How did these values appear there?
Are you sure your script does include the initial if (loose_route) { t_relay();break; }
sequence? That should forward the request to address in request URI.
Now I do have another UA which in this same scenario
sends the correct ACK:
Session Initiation Protocol
Request line: ACK sip:sip-proxy@ser-domain.com SIP/2.0
Method: ACK
Message Header
Route: <sip:ua3@22.2.4.193:5071>
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 2.20.64.193:5063
From: ua1 <sip:ua1@ser-domain.com;user=phone>;tag=3551608275
To: <sip:ua2@ser-domain.com;user=phone>;tag=as112d04ea
Call-ID: 2653016335(a)142.133.80.101
CSeq: 2 ACK
User-Agent: Cisco ATA 186 v3.0.0 atasip (031210A)
Proxy-Authorization: Digest username
Content-Length: 0
In this case ser follow the route header, and ends up sending the ACK to UA3.
Snom phone with 2.03o firmware as well as sipura with 1.0.10 and 1.0.29b firmware have the
same wrong behaviour.
What is the right way of having this ?
The problem with snom may be the phone uses some preloaded Routes
which are incompatible with some record-routing workaround for a Cisco
gateway problem in SER. I remember it was reported on the archive --
you perhaps find more there.
My understanding is that in record route situation, ser
looks into the route header, and sends the message based on it.
yes
Here I do have User Agents which seem to create an ACK
message ignoring it should go to a sip proxy .
You told above UA1 does send to proxy, did not you? It would be better to
send a complete message dump and config file.
-jiri