I do not agree... Contact should be same
in the dialog…
From:
serusers-bounces@iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org] On Behalf Of Linda Xiao
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005
1:16 PM
To:
Cc: serusers@lists.iptel.org
Subject: RE: [Serusers] Claims of
ser-0.9 RFC3261 Violation
You are not the only service provider who makes this kind of changes. I
also encountered the same problem recently. But so far, this problem only
happened on one UA which has the same sip engine as this engineer's. All
other UAs in my hand can adapt this kinds of changes. So I personally think
that instead of complaining SIP proxy violation, I would rather complain
the interoperatibility of this sip engine.
regards/Linda
-----Original
Message-----
From: serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces@iptel.org]
On Behalf Of Klaus Darilion
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 9:37 AM
To:
Cc: serusers@lists.iptel.org
Subject: Re: [Serusers] Claims of ser-0.9 RFC3261 Violation
I guess the engineer is right. Thus, I use fix_nated_register() instead
of fix_nated_contact which does not rewrite the contact header.
regards,
klaus
> It is the same. Their IAD successfully registers the first time, but
> loses its registration because re-REGISTER messages are claimed to be
> in voliation of RFC3261.
>
> Here is exactly what their engineers are telling me:
>
>
> Paul,
> Here is the my findings regarding the contact
field in the
> REGISTER message...
>
> We suspect the registration fails because the Contact of 200OK does
> not match the Contact of REGISTER:
>
>>From the capture, Our network toplogy is like:
> TA: 192.168.0.180 <--------> Router 65.77.37.2 <---------->
Softswitch
> 64.84.242.120
>
> Packet 4 REGISTER:
> Contact: <sip:3212514276@192.168.0.180;user=phone>;expires=200
>
> Packet 6 200OK:
> Contact: <sip:3212514276@65.77.37.2:36323;user=phone>;expires=200,
> <sip:3212514276@65.77.37.2:36235;user=phone>;expires=3
>
> In RFC3261, it says:
> The 200 (OK) response from the registrar contains a list
of Contact
> fields enumerating all current bindings. The UA compares
each
> contact address to see if it created the contact
address, using
> comparison rules in Section 19.1.4. If so, it updates
the expiration
> time interval according to the expires parameter or, if
absent, the
> Expires field value. The UA then issues a REGISTER
request for each
> of its bindings before the expiration interval has
elapsed. It MAY
> combine several updates into one REGISTER request.
>
> So obviously the contact addresses in 200OK don't match the one in
> REGISTER.
>
>
> On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 11:28:51 -0500, Vitaly Nikolaev
> <vitaly@voipsonic.com> wrote:
>
>>Is contact field that SER sends to UAS is same for all requests ?
>>
>>If not probably you are not doing fix natted contact in some cases
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces@iptel.org]
>>On Behalf Of
>>Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 11:17 AM
>>To: serusers@lists.iptel.org
>>Subject: [Serusers] Claims of ser-0.9 RFC3261 Violation
>>
>>I just spoke with an enginee from a manufacturer of the WorldAccxx
>>telephone adapter and he told me that my SIP proxy was in voliation of
>>RFC3261.
>>
>>Below is a SIP registration against my ser-0.9 proxy. I'm using media
>>proxy for NAT traversal and he says that my 200 OK is not valid and
>>therefore their IAD disregards the 200 OK response.
>>
>>The problem he claims is with the <Contact:> header in the 200
OK. SER
>>has rewritten the contact becase his IAD is NATed. Should I not be
>>doing this?
>>
>>The actual problem is that when their IAD is NATed the device looses
>>its registration with ser because (they claim) that the REGISTER
>>message they send has a <Contact> header iwith a different IP
than
>>what ser sends back in the 200 OK message.
>>
>>They referenced section 10.2.4 and 19.1.4 in RFC3261.
>>
>>Can anyone confirm or reject their claims?
>>
>>Please help.
>>Paul
>>
>>REGISTER sip:sip.mycompany.com:5060 SIP/2.0
>>Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.0.180;branch=z9hG4bKbb013e10d
>>Max-Forwards: 70
>>Content-Length: 0
>>To: Accxx <sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060>
>>From: Accxx <sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060>;tag=1eb7db0b344ac92
>>Call-ID: bd4da0ebfe98297597243a92b1b0f868@192.168.0.180
>>CSeq: 392547129 REGISTER
>>Contact: Accxx <sip:1000@192.168.0.180;user=phone>;expires=200
>>Allow: NOTIFY
>>Allow: REFER
>>Allow: OPTIONS
>>Allow: INVITE
>>Allow: ACK
>>Allow: CANCEL
>>Allow: BYE
>>User-Agent: WATA200 Callctrl/1.5.1.1 MxSF/v3.2.6.26
>>
>>SIP/2.0 100 Trying
>>Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
>>192.168.0.180;branch=z9hG4bKbb013e10d;rport=36323;received=65.77.37.2
>>To: Accxx <sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060>
>>From: Accxx <sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060>;tag=1eb7db0b344ac92
>>Call-ID: bd4da0ebfe98297597243a92b1b0f868@192.168.0.180
>>CSeq: 392547129 REGISTER
>>Content-Length: 0
>>
>>SIP/2.0 401 Unauthorized
>>Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
>>192.168.0.180;branch=z9hG4bKbb013e10d;rport=36323;received=65.77.37.2
>>To: Accxx
>><sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060>;tag=bf952ed189d8425c881b09485aa0b6f1
>>.bdad
>>From: Accxx <sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060>;tag=1eb7db0b344ac92
>>Call-ID: bd4da0ebfe98297597243a92b1b0f868@192.168.0.180
>>CSeq: 392547129 REGISTER
>>WWW-Authenticate: Digest realm="sip.mycompany.com",
>>nonce="42025161902f6f6af11f01f0a93ad2877e606bbc"
>>Content-Length: 0
>>
>>REGISTER sip:sip.mycompany.com:5060 SIP/2.0
>>Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.0.180;branch=z9hG4bK88fcb4e76
>>Max-Forwards: 70
>>Content-Length: 0
>>To: Accxx <sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060>
>>From: Accxx <sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060>;tag=1eb7db0b344ac92
>>Call-ID: bd4da0ebfe98297597243a92b1b0f868@192.168.0.180
>>CSeq: 392547130 REGISTER
>>Contact: Accxx <sip:1000@192.168.0.180;user=phone>;expires=200
>>Allow: NOTIFY
>>Allow: REFER
>>Allow: OPTIONS
>>Allow: INVITE
>>Allow: ACK
>>Allow: CANCEL
>>Allow: BYE
>>Authorization:Digest
>>response="18aabe984a6d89cc537cec9ce43b198d",username="1000",realm="sip
>>.mycom
>>pany.com",nonce="42025161902f6f6af11f01f0a93ad2877e606bbc",uri="sip:sip.myco
>>mpany.com:5060"
>>User-Agent: WATA200 Callctrl/1.5.1.1 MxSF/v3.2.6.26
>>
>>SIP/2.0 100 Trying
>>Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
>>192.168.0.180;branch=z9hG4bK88fcb4e76;rport=36323;received=65.77.37.2
>>To: Accxx <sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060>
>>From: Accxx <sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060>;tag=1eb7db0b344ac92
>>Call-ID: bd4da0ebfe98297597243a92b1b0f868@192.168.0.180
>>CSeq: 392547130 REGISTER
>>Content-Length: 0
>>
>>SIP/2.0 200 OK
>>Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
>>192.168.0.180;branch=z9hG4bK88fcb4e76;rport=36323;received=65.77.37.2
>>To: Accxx
>><sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060>;tag=bf952ed189d8425c881b09485aa0b6f1
>>.5e63
>>From: Accxx <sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060>;tag=1eb7db0b344ac92
>>Call-ID: bd4da0ebfe98297597243a92b1b0f868@192.168.0.180
>>CSeq: 392547130 REGISTER
>>Contact: <sip:1000@65.77.37.2:36323;user=phone>;expires=200,
>><sip:1000@65.77.37.2:36235;user=phone>;expires=3
>>Content-Length: 0
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Serusers mailing list
>>serusers@lists.iptel.org http://mail.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Serusers mailing list
> serusers@lists.iptel.org http://mail.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
>
>
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers@lists.iptel.org http://mail.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers