Curious about the ALG vendor/model/version, if it is some
carrier/enterprise grade firewall, just to be aware when meeting it ...
of course, if you can and want to share such details...
Cheers,
Daniel
On 14.01.20 08:42, Lợi Đặng wrote:
Nice, be ware of the ALG, sometimes it's an
unpredictable foe.
rgds,
Loi Dang Thanh
On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 4:42 AM Michael Broughton
<mbroughton(a)advanis.net <mailto:mbroughton@advanis.net>> wrote:
Just to provide some closure to this, the problem did end up being
with the Via headers and our firewall ALG.
In the top Via header of the INVITE requests the ALG was
transforming the internal proxy address to our external address
and adding port 5060. In subsequent negative ACK and CANCEL
requests, the ALG was transforming the internal proxy address to
our external address with no port number. Thus the Via's did not
exactly match, and this prevented our telco from matching the
existing transaction.
I was able to fix the issue by modifying our Kam config with the
advertise parameter:
listen = 10.x.y.z advertise 10.x.y.z:5060
With this setting in place the ALG is forced to behave itself.
On Thu, Jan 9, 2020 at 9:27 AM Michael Broughton
<mbroughton(a)advanis.net <mailto:mbroughton@advanis.net>> wrote:
I'm using 5.3.1+stretch from
deb.kamailio.org
<http://deb.kamailio.org> for our new setup. Our old setup was
using 4.4.4+wheezy.
On Thu, Jan 9, 2020 at 9:16 AM Daniel-Constantin Mierla
<miconda(a)gmail.com <mailto:miconda@gmail.com>> wrote:
Is it a recent version of kamailio, or an older one?
Cheers,
Daniel
On 09.01.20 16:55, Michael Broughton wrote:
Thank you, this was a helpful sanity
check.
We have been capturing SIP traces to try and debug this.
I normally just look at the traffic on our Kam box
because it is convenient to do so, but I have also taken
traces on our firewall to check the ALG behaviour. The
provider techs are also tracing these calls on their
network as well. The ALG is new equipment in our setup,
but as far as I can tell it is behaving correctly.
The one rather annoying discovery that I made is that
when I call directly out from the source (Freeswitch in
this case) and bypass Kamailio, the negative ACK's seem
to work. I do not see any retransmissions of their final
response. And of course the only significant difference
in the SIP traces is the Via headers.
Anyway, thanks again for your input.
On Thu, Jan 9, 2020 at 4:04 AM Lợi Đặng
<loi.dangthanh(a)gmail.com
<mailto:loi.dangthanh@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi,
You're not going to have the Via header from your
`source` sent to your `telco provider` in the
negative ACK when the call is not answered, because
the ACK in the right hand side of the call is created
by the kamailio itself, not a forwarding one by the
`source`.
Yes, you've guessed it, ACK for an answered call is a
forwarding one which contains all the Via headers.
It's the SIP spec, not kamailio, you may want to dive
into rfc3261 for more details.
In this case, your telco's expectation is not
correct, my best guess is something went wrong with
either your SIP ALG or Telco Provider. SIP capturing
may help.
rgds,
Loi Dang Thanh
Phone : +84. 774.735.448
Email : loi.dangthanh(a)gmail.com
<mailto:loi.dangthanh@gmail.com>
On Thu, Jan 9, 2020 at 2:42 AM Michael Broughton
<mbroughton(a)advanis.net
<mailto:mbroughton@advanis.net>> wrote:
Hello,
Long time Kam/Ser user, first time poster.
I'm running into a problem with one of our
telco providers when we make a call that ends up
being not in service or some other error. In
this case our ACK's are not working and the phone
line stays open for a period of time
until something times out on their end.
They claim the issue is that our negative ACK
message is dropping one of the Via headers. This
is the only case I can find in our setup where
Kamailio does this. But it does drop the first
Via, which is the first hop in our internal network.
I don't understand why this is a problem for
them, and I'm still trying to get a reasonable
explanation out of them. Technically, I don't see
why it would be a problem. This behaviour is not
an issue with our other telco providers.
Strangely enough, it is also not an issue for
this provider when we make the calls over their
MPLS network (we are switching to the internet).
My question is, can this behaviour be changed in
Kamailio somehow? Is there a way for it to keep
all the Via headers for negative ACK's?
Or, do I just need to poke them harder to fix
their issues?
My setup:
Source -> Kamailio -> Firewall (NAT, SIP ALG) ->
Telco Provider
I hope I have provided enough information.
Thanks!
Michael
_______________________________________________
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org
<mailto:sr-users@lists.kamailio.org>
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
_______________________________________________
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org
<mailto:sr-users@lists.kamailio.org>
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
_______________________________________________
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org <mailto:sr-users@lists.kamailio.org>
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla --
www.asipto.com <http://www.asipto.com>
www.twitter.com/miconda <http://www.twitter.com/miconda> --
www.linkedin.com/in/miconda <http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda>
Kamailio World Conference - April 27-29, 2020, in Berlin --
www.kamailioworld.com <http://www.kamailioworld.com>
_______________________________________________
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org <mailto:sr-users@lists.kamailio.org>
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
_______________________________________________
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users