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.mycompany.com",nonce="42025161902f6f6af11f01f0a93ad2877e606bbc",uri="sip:sip.mycompany.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
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@iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org] On Behalf Of Java Rockx 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://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
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@iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org] On Behalf Of Java Rockx 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://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
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
Java Rockx wrote:
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@iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org] On Behalf Of Java Rockx 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://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
-
Java Rockx -
Klaus Darilion -
Vitaly Nikolaev