18 May
2011
18 May
'11
12:10 p.m.
Dear sirs,
using version 3.1.3 (kamailio flavour), I noticed that the Via
inserted by the proxy, relaying an end2end ACK, contains a branch
parameter equal to 0 (with no magic cookie prefixed). No misbehaviour
followed, but I was wonder about the reason for this behaviour and
whether it can be a fault of my config:
route
{
[some checks]
if (!is_method("REGISTER|MESSAGE|PUBLISH")) {
record_route();
} else if (is_method("REGISTER")) {
route(HANDLE_REGISTER);
exit;
}
if (loose_route()){
if (!has_totag()){
if (!is_method("ACK")){
send_reply("403", "Preset Route Set Not Allowed");
}
exit;
}
t_check_trans();
if (is_method("ACK")){
if ($du == $null){
handle_ruri_alias();
}
if (isflagset(T_UAC_NATED) && isflagset(T_UAC_USER)){
add_contact_alias();
}
remove_hf("Proxy-Authorization");
t_relay();
exit;
}
}
[other processing]
}
Here's an example for the forwarded ACK:
U 2011/05/17 15:05:49.392201 proxy_1_ip:5060 -> location_callee_ip:5060
ACK sip:5303838@192.168.130.169;user=phone SIP/2.0.
Record-Route: <sip:proxy_1_ip;lr=on;ftag=a2z0myc9r6>.
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP proxy_1_ip;branch=0.
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP proxy_0_ip;rport=5060;branch=0.
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
192.168.130.171:2048;received=location_caller_ip;branch=z9hG4bK-pud4cfiz8vsh;rport=4791.
From: "cento tondo" <sip:100@proxy_0_hostname>;tag=a2z0myc9r6.
To: <sip:5375485@proxy_1_hostname;user=phone>;tag=00221b79b1b28969.
Call-ID: 3c352c0b8419-9tbq023tzfkp.
CSeq: 2 ACK.
Max-Forwards: 68.
Contact:
<sip:100@192.168.130.171:2048;alias=location_caller_ip~4791~1;line=gwwqwi25>;reg-id=1.
Content-Length: 0.
.
where proxy_1 does force_rport and record_route() on ACK too, and
proxy_0 does not. Both proxies run the same version, and a similar ACK
script processing.
Best regards,
Francesco Castellano