6 Jul
2007
6 Jul
'07
9:19 a.m.
Hi,
the bug is on the side of you providers gateway (i bet it is a cisco pgw).
with lr=on the cisco PGW creates the R-URI from the from-uri with <>.
without the "=on" it creates the correct R-URI. we had the same problem
after upgrading the IOS of the cisco PGW.
there are two workarounds:
1. disable full lr
2. modify the R-URI in the config file: the $ruri variable is empty
(<null>) when openser gets a SIP Message with < > in the R-URI. use the
to-uri and write it into the $ruri. you'll still have error messages in
the logs, but it does work for your clients. (yeah, it is a bad
workaround, but it is working...)
1. is the better way.
Hi Martin,
thanks for quick answer.
Exactly how does disabling full lr solve this? I mean, how does it
change the way "<>" is handled?
Br,
/Tobias
Martin Klisch said the following on 2007-07-06 12:59:
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
Users(a)openser.org
http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
Hi all,
after a patch from one of our providers ACKs started to come with R-URI
looking like:
ACK <sip:192.168.0.1;lr=on;ftag=507454020> SIP/2.0
instead of:
ACK sip:192.168.0.1;lr=on;ftag=507454020 SIP/2.0
like it did before the patch.
The new ACK format gives an error in OpenSER:
Jul 6 11:35:55 ser1 /sbin/openser[9634]: ERROR: parse_uri: bad uri,
state 0 parsed: <<sip> (4) /
<<sip:192.168.0.1;lr=on;ftag=507454020>>
(38)
Jul 6 11:35:55 ser1 /sbin/openser[9634]: ERROR: parse_sip_msg_uri: bad
uri <<sip:192.168.0.1;lr=on;ftag=507454020>>
Jul 6 11:35:55 ser1 /sbin/openser[9634]: loose_route: Error while
parsing Request URI
Are the new format of the ACKs valid? With the "<>"? If they are valid,
the problem lies in OpenSER?
It is not valid. it is a bug on cisco PGW after upgrading to another
ios.
you have to disable full lr: modparam("rr", "enable_full_lr", 0).
the cisco gateway takes the whole from-uri (with <>) for the r-uri.
cisco
people said "the =on behind the lr is wrong. it is not in the rfc." -
but
the rfc doesnt say, that there must only be a lr without params. but the
rfc shows a "must not" about <> in R-URI.