Hello,
yes, that is possible because the new version of ser implements loose routing as per RFC3261.
It is possible that: 1) Some user agents don't implement it right 2) There is a bug in the rr module.
FYI, I have fixed a bug in the rr module approximately 2-3 weeks ago which could cause 483.
Jan.
On 24-06 15:14, Greg Fausak wrote:
Hi,
I'm seeing this particular message much more often with the CVS code than I did with the 8.10 code.
Just an observation :-)
---greg
-----Original Message----- From: serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org] On Behalf Of Andy Blen Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 3:03 PM To: Chintan Thakker Cc: serusers@lists.iptel.org Subject: Re: [Serusers] 483 - Too many hops
(you forgot to CC the mailing list)
a possibility is that the contacts you registered cause a loop.
andy
At 06:22 PM 6/24/2003, Chintan Thakker wrote:
Hi, Seems I missed something, I am sending INVITE to
sip:9727610001@192.1.2.17 with Route: sip:192.1.2.17;lr to the proxy server ('ser') running on 192.1.2.17 and getting 483 - too many hops message. I modified ser.conf to add alias = "192.1.2.17" but it still gives me the same problem.
What am I missing out ?. I guess an 'alias=192.1.2.17'
entry should return a true to 'uri==myself' matching performed in the script and make the server process that request rather than forwarding it (to itself in this case)
Thanks, Chintan
-- ser.cfg --
1 # 2 # $Id: ser.cfg,v 1.20 2003/05/31 21:12:19 jiri Exp $ 3 # 4 # simple quick-start config script 5 # 6 7 # ----------- global configuration parameters
8 9 debug=3 # debug level (cmd line: -dddddddddd)10 fork=yes 11 log_stderror=no # (cmd line: -E) 12 13 /* Uncomment these lines to enter debugging mode 14 debug=7 15 fork=no 16 log_stderror=yes 17 */ 18 19 check_via=no # (cmd. line: -v) 20 dns=no # (cmd. line: -r) 21 rev_dns=no # (cmd. line: -R) 22 port=5060 23 children=4 24 fifo="/tmp/ser_fifo" 25 26 # ------------------ module loading
27 28 # Uncomment this if you want to use SQL database 29 #loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/mysql.so" 30 31 loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/sl.so" 32 loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/tm.so" 33 loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/rr.so" 34 loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/maxfwd.so" 35 loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/usrloc.so" 36 loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/registrar.so" 37 38 # Uncomment this if you want digest authentication 39 # mysql.so must be loaded ! 40 #loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/auth.so" 41 #loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/auth_db.so" 42 43 # ----------------- setting module-specific
parameters ---------------
44 45 # -- usrloc params -- 46 47 modparam("usrloc", "db_mode", 0) 48 49 # Uncomment this if you want to use SQL database 50 # for persistent storage and comment the previous line 51 #modparam("usrloc", "db_mode", 2) 52 53 # -- auth params -- 54 # Uncomment if you are using auth module 55 # 56 #modparam("auth_db", "calculate_ha1", yes) 57 # 58 # If you set "calculate_ha1" parameter to yes (which
true in this config),
59 # uncomment also the following parameter) 60 # 61 #modparam("auth_db", "password_column", "password") 62 63 # ------------------------- request routing logic
64 65 #add aliases 66 alias="192.1.2.17" 67 68 # main routing logic 69 70 route{ 71 72 # initial sanity checks -- messages with 73 # max_forwards==0, or excessively long requests 74 if (!mf_process_maxfwd_header("10")) { 75 sl_send_reply("483","Too Many Hops"); 76 break; 77 }; 78 if (len_gt( max_len )) { 79 sl_send_reply("513", "Message too big"); 80 break; 81 }; 82 83 # we record-route all messages -- to make sure that 84 # subsequent messages will go through our
proxy; that's
85 # particularly good if upstream and
downstream entities
86 # use different transport protocol 87 record_route(); 88 # loose-route processing 89 if (loose_route()) { 90 t_relay(); 91 break; 92 }; 93 94 # if the request is for other domain use UsrLoc 95 # (in case, it does not work, use the
following command
96 # with proper names and addresses in it) 97 if (uri==myself) { 98 99 if (method=="REGISTER") { 100 101 # Uncomment this if you want to use digest authentication 102 # if
(!www_authorize("iptel.org", "subscriber")) {
103 #
www_challenge("iptel.org", "0");
53,1 65% 104 # break; 105 # }; 106 107 save("location"); 108 break; 109 }; 110 111 # native SIP destinations are handled
using our USRLOC DB
112 if (!lookup("location")) { 113 sl_send_reply("404", "Not Found"); 114 break; 115 }; 116 }; 117 #Let tje server [rpcess tje cirremt reqiest 118 #if(uri =~ "^sip:(.+@)?(192.1.2.17)([:;?].*)?$" ) 119 #{ 120 # break; 121 #}; 122 123 # forward to current uri now; use stateful
forwarding; that
124 # works reliably even if we forward from TCP to UDP 125 if (!t_relay()) { 126 sl_reply_error(); 127 }; 128 129 } 130
- end ser.cfg --
Andy Blen wrote:
most likely a misconfig issue on your side, feel free to
read the doc, http://www.iptel.org/ser/doc/prerelease/x1026.html#AEN1032
andy
At 12:18 AM 6/21/2003, Chintan Thakker wrote:
Hi, Consider the following scenario. UA1 is trying to call UA2
both registered with the same proxy. (UA1 -> 'ser' -> UA2)
UA1 sends INVITE to the proxy with request uri set to UA2.
It also sets the Route header in the invite to that of the proxy.
This returns a 483 - too many hops to UA1
It seems that in the above mentioned scenario, the proxy
loops back the INVITE multiple times locally. This decrements the Max Forwards value every time until it becomes zero and hence sends 483 back to UA1. It seems to me this is not the correct behavior of the server. It should forward the request to UA2.
Thanks in advance,
Chintan
-- Start trace --
U 2003/06/20 15:24:42.362466 192.1.2.88:5060 -> 192.1.2.17:5060 INVITE sip:9727610001@192.1.2.17 SIP/2.0.Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
192.1.2.88:5060;b
ranch=z9hG4bK421668676.Max-Forwards: 70.From: 9727619271
<sip:9727619271@19
2.1.2.88>;tag=421668676.To: 9727610001
sip:9727610001@192.1.2.17.Call-ID:
421668676@192.1.2.88.CSeq: 1 INVITE.Contact:
ontent-Type: application/sdp.Content-Length: 138.Route:
..v=0.o=username 421668676 421668676 IN IP4
192.1.2.88.s=Session SDP.c=IN I
P4 192.1.2.88.t=0 0.m=audio 54454 RTP/AVP 0.a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000.
U 2003/06/20 15:24:42.363813 192.1.2.17:5060 -> 192.1.2.88:5060 SIP/2.0 100 trying -- your call is important to us..Via:
SIP/2.0/UDP 192.1.
2.88:5060;branch=z9hG4bK421668676..From: 9727619271
<sip:9727619271@192.1.2
.88>;tag=421668676.To: 9727610001
sip:9727610001@192.1.2.17.Call-ID: 4216
68676@192.1.2.88.CSeq: 1 INVITE.Server: Sip EXpress router
(0.8.11pre29 (i3
86/linux))..Content-Length: 0..Warning: 392
192.1.2.17:5060 "Noisy feedback
tells: pid=15107 req_src_ip=192.1.2.88 req_src_port=5060
in_uri=sip:97276
10001@192.1.2.17 out_uri=sip:9727610001@192.1.2.17 via_cnt==1".... # U 2003/06/20 15:24:42.794681 192.1.2.17:5060 -> 192.1.2.88:5060 SIP/2.0 483 Too Many Hops..Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
192.1.2.88:5060;branch=z9hG4bK4
21668676..From: 9727619271
sip:9727619271@192.1.2.88;tag=421668676.To: 97
27610001
sip:9727610001@192.1.2.17;tag=b27e1a1d33761e85846fc98f5f3a7e58.4
632.Call-ID: 421668676@192.1.2.88.CSeq: 1 INVITE.Server:
Sip EXpress router
(0.8.11pre29 (i386/linux))..Content-Length: 0..Warning:
392 192.1.2.17:506
0 "Noisy feedback tells: pid=15107 req_src_ip=192.1.2.17
req_src_port=5060
in_uri=sip:9727610001@192.1.2.17
out_uri=sip:9727610001@192.1.2.17 via_cnt
==71"....
-- End trace --
ps: We checked it with loose routing(suceeding ';lr'
present in URIs in Route) as well as strict routing(suceeding ';lr' not present in URIs in Route). Should the type of routing used matter ?
Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
-- Andy Blen iptel.org Services
-- Andy Blen iptel.org Services
Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers