The ACK for the 4xx reply must use exact the same values in the headers
as they was in the original INVITE (except CSeq), but you have:
I: Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.0.138:5061;branch=z9hG4bK-6353-1-0;rport.
A: Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.0.138:5061;branch=z9hG4bK-6353-1-4;rport.
and the Route header is missing in the ACK, which is also required.
See RFC3261, 17.1.1.3
Michal
On Thu, 2006-12-21 at 11:14 +0100, =?UTF-8?Q? tzieleniewski ?= wrote:
Thanku for fast unswer!
Sorry but I made copy/paste error:)
here is the correct grep:
#
U 2006/12/19 13:59:52.296438 192.168.0.138:5060 -> 192.168.0.74:5060
INVITE sip:tzl@scscf.ims.touk.pl SIP/2.0.
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.0.138:5061;branch=z9hG4bK-6353-1-0;rport.
Route: <sip:scscf.ims.touk.pl;lr>.
Max-Forwards: 70.
Contact: <sip:sippclient@192.168.0.138:5061>.
To: "tzl"<sip:tzl@scscf.ims.touk.pl>.
From: "sippclient"<sip:sippclient@scscf.ims.touk.pl>;tag=1.
Call-ID: 1-6353(a)192.168.0.138.
CSeq: 1 INVITE.
Subject: Performance Test.
Content-Type: application/sdp.
Content-Length: 137.
.
v=0.
o=user1 53655765 2353687637 IN IP4 192.168.0.138.
s=-.
t=0 0.
c=IN IP4 192.168.0.138.
m=audio 6000 RTP/AVP 0.
a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000.
.
#
U 2006/12/19 13:59:52.296960 192.168.0.74:5060 -> 192.168.0.138:5060
SIP/2.0 407 Proxy Authentication Required.
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.0.138:5061;branch=z9hG4bK-6353-1-0;rport=5060.
To:
"tzl"<sip:tzl@scscf.ims.touk.pl>;tag=9463a2e9cf4445c72e97ac31aeb7f1ed.4ea0.
From: "sippclient"<sip:sippclient@scscf.ims.touk.pl>;tag=1.
Call-ID: 1-6353(a)192.168.0.138.
CSeq: 1 INVITE.
Proxy-Authenticate: Digest realm="scscf.ims.touk.pl",
nonce="4587f18458a218340aa80d3f0cb5a4886fc200be".
Server: Sip EXpress router (0.9.7-pre1 (x86_64/linux)).
Content-Length: 0.
Warning: 392 scscf.ims.touk.pl:5060 "Noisy feedback tells: pid=5452
req_src_ip=192.168.0.138 req_src_port=5060 in_uri=sip:tzl@scscf.ims.touk.pl
out_uri=sip:tzl@scscf.ims.touk.pl via_cnt==1".
.
#
U 2006/12/19 13:59:52.297775 192.168.0.138:5060 -> 192.168.0.74:5060
ACK sip:tzl@scscf.ims.touk.pl SIP/2.0.
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.0.138:5061;branch=z9hG4bK-6353-1-4;rport.
To:
"tzl"<sip:tzl@scscf.ims.touk.pl>;tag=9463a2e9cf4445c72e97ac31aeb7f1ed.4ea0.
From: "sippclient"<sip:sippclient@scscf.ims.touk.pl>;tag=1.
Contact: <sip:sippclient@192.168.0.138:5061>.
Call-ID: 1-6353(a)192.168.0.138.
CSeq: 1 ACK.
Subject: Performance Test.
Content-Length: 0.
.
#
U 2006/12/19 13:59:52.298207 192.168.0.74:5060 -> 192.168.0.138:7002
ACK sip:tzl@192.168.0.138:7002 SIP/2.0.
Max-Forwards: 10.
Record-Route: <sip:192.168.0.74;ftag=1;lr=on>.
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.0.74;branch=0.
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.0.138:5061;branch=z9hG4bK-6353-1-4;rport=5060.
To:
"tzl"<sip:tzl@scscf.ims.touk.pl>;tag=9463a2e9cf4445c72e97ac31aeb7f1ed.4ea0.
From: "sippclient"<sip:sippclient@scscf.ims.touk.pl>;tag=1.
Contact: <sip:sippclient@192.168.0.138:5061>.
Call-ID: 1-6353(a)192.168.0.138.
CSeq: 1 ACK.
Subject: Performance Test.
Content-Length: 0.
.
Bests
Tomasz Zieleniewski
There's nothing wrong in your scenario and I
don't see ser forwarding
the ACK to the uas. I see the uas sending the same ACK to ser twice with
exactly the same timestamp 13:29:24.986124. Are you sure you for some
reason haven't captured the same packet twice?
g-)
tzieleniewski wrote:
> Hi All!
>
> I was trying to write some test under sipp to test ser.
> My scenario was the following:
> UA1 SIPProxy UA2
> |INVITE | |
> |------------->| |
> |407 | |
> |<-------------| |
> |ACK | |
> |------------->| |
> |INVITE | |
> |------------->| |
> |TRYING | |
> |<-------------| |
> | |INVITE |
> | |------------->|
> | |OK |
> | |<-------------|
> |OK | |
> |<-------------| |
> |ACK | |
> |------------->| |
> | |ACK |
> | |------------->|
> I have no idea why in case of sipp emulation ser forward the first ACK to the UAS
wich is in my case x-lite under linux. ser ip is 192.168.0.74:)
>
> The ngrep from ser port is as follows:
> #
> U 2006/12/19 13:29:24.976872 192.168.0.138:5060 -> 192.168.0.74:5060
> INVITE sip:tzl@scscf.ims.touk.pl SIP/2.0.
> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.0.138:5061;branch=z9hG4bK-6204-1-0;rport.
> Route: <sip:scscf.ims.touk.pl;lr>.
> Max-Forwards: 70.
> Contact: <sip:sippclient@192.168.0.138:5061>.
> To: "tzl"<sip:tzl@scscf.ims.touk.pl>.
> From: "sippclient"<sip:sippclient@scscf.ims.touk.pl>;tag=1.
> Call-ID: 1-6204(a)127.0.0.1.
> CSeq: 1 INVITE.
> Subject: Performance Test.
> Content-Type: application/sdp.
> Content-Length: 133.
> .
> v=0.
> o=user1 53655765 2353687637 IN IP4 192.168.0.138.
> s=-.
> t=0 0.
> c=IN IP4 127.0.0.1.
> m=audio 6000 RTP/AVP 0.
> a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000.
>
> #
> U 2006/12/19 13:29:24.977525 192.168.0.74:5060 -> 192.168.0.138:5060
> SIP/2.0 407 Proxy Authentication Required.
> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.0.138:5061;branch=z9hG4bK-6204-1-0;rport=5060.
> To:
"tzl"<sip:tzl@scscf.ims.touk.pl>;tag=9463a2e9cf4445c72e97ac31aeb7f1ed.a61b.
> From: "sippclient"<sip:sippclient@scscf.ims.touk.pl>;tag=1.
> Call-ID: 1-6204(a)127.0.0.1.
> CSeq: 1 INVITE.
> Proxy-Authenticate: Digest realm="scscf.ims.touk.pl",
nonce="4587ea6059d5f141fce33748a3560a1eb274d934".
> Server: Sip EXpress router (0.9.7-pre1 (x86_64/linux)).
> Content-Length: 0.
> Warning: 392 scscf.ims.touk.pl:5060 "Noisy feedback tells: pid=5453
req_src_ip=192.168.0.138 req_src_port=5060 in_uri=sip:tzl@scscf.ims.touk.pl
out_uri=sip:tzl@scscf.ims.touk.pl via_cnt==1".
> .
>
> #
> U 2006/12/19 13:29:24.986124 192.168.0.138:5060 -> 192.168.0.74:5060
> ACK sip:tzl@scscf.ims.touk.pl SIP/2.0.
> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.0.138:5061;branch=z9hG4bK-6204-1-4;rport.
> To:
"tzl"<sip:tzl@scscf.ims.touk.pl>;tag=9463a2e9cf4445c72e97ac31aeb7f1ed.a61b.
> From: "sippclient"<sip:sippclient@scscf.ims.touk.pl>;tag=1.
> Call-ID: 1-6204(a)127.0.0.1.
> CSeq: 1 ACK.
> Subject: Performance Test.
> Content-Length: 0.
> .
>
> #
> U 2006/12/19 13:29:24.986124 192.168.0.138:5060 -> 192.168.0.74:5060
> ACK sip:tzl@scscf.ims.touk.pl SIP/2.0.
> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.0.138:5061;branch=z9hG4bK-6204-1-4;rport.
> To:
"tzl"<sip:tzl@scscf.ims.touk.pl>;tag=9463a2e9cf4445c72e97ac31aeb7f1ed.a61b.
> From: "sippclient"<sip:sippclient@scscf.ims.touk.pl>;tag=1.
> Call-ID: 1-6204(a)127.0.0.1.
> CSeq: 1 ACK.
> Subject: Performance Test.
> Content-Length: 0.
> .
>
> there is olso one thing more when I used x-lite instead of the sipp as uac ser
did't forward the ACK.
>
> Please help me with this one.
> Bests tomek
> _______________________________________________
> Serusers mailing list
> Serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
>
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
Serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers