26 Aug
2014
26 Aug
'14
7:05 p.m.
Hi all,
I'm having some issues treating requests within dialogs with gruu enabled
with kamailio 4.1.2.
I've got the "standard" configuration of WITHIN route with the adition of
the next lines:
if(is_gruu()){
route(LOCATION);
};
before the the RELAY route call in the loose_route section.
The "problem" is that the ACK with a pub-gruu on the Req-URI is not
properly lookup. In the logs I can see the following statements:
2(4232) DEBUG: registrar [lookup.c:123]: lookup(): looking up pub gruu
[urn:uuid:d63b1c4f-d7dc-4f4e-87f1-948123266dc0]
2(4232) DEBUG: registrar [lookup.c:158]: lookup(): 'sam(a)A.B.C.D' Not found
in usrloc
Where A.B.C.D is the local IP of the UA.
Looking at the code, this last line looks like is looking for the
"standard" URI (username@domain) instead of using the pub gruu. Am I right
with this assumption or am I missing something from the code?
As far as I could look, it looks like there's an exit -1 statement in the
line 158 of lookup.c which disables the following gruu treatment.
Since the username with IP is not registered, this ACK is lost and the
sesion is not stablished (lost ACK).
Can anyone provide some hints why is this failing?
Thanks a lot in advance!
Samuel.
26 Aug
26 Aug
7:22 p.m.
Hello,
can you send a trace that includes the registration as well as the call?
The pub-gruu is using the AoR, iirc.
Also, the line you refer to is not matching anymore with latest 4.1.x --
paste the code around it to locate it properly.
Cheers,
Daniel
On 26/08/14 18:05, samuel wrote:
Hi all,
I'm having some issues treating requests within dialogs with gruu
enabled with kamailio 4.1.2.
I've got the "standard" configuration of WITHIN route with the adition
of the next lines:
if(is_gruu()){
route(LOCATION);
};
before the the RELAY route call in the loose_route section.
The "problem" is that the ACK with a pub-gruu on the Req-URI is not
properly lookup. In the logs I can see the following statements:
2(4232) DEBUG: registrar [lookup.c:123]: lookup(): looking up pub
gruu [urn:uuid:d63b1c4f-d7dc-4f4e-87f1-948123266dc0]
2(4232) DEBUG: registrar [lookup.c:158]: lookup(): 'sam(a)A.B.C.D' Not
found in usrloc
Where A.B.C.D is the local IP of the UA.
Looking at the code, this last line looks like is looking for the
"standard" URI (username@domain) instead of using the pub gruu. Am I
right with this assumption or am I missing something from the code?
As far as I could look, it looks like there's an exit -1 statement in
the line 158 of lookup.c which disables the following gruu treatment.
Since the username with IP is not registered, this ACK is lost and the
sesion is not stablished (lost ACK).
Can anyone provide some hints why is this failing?
Thanks a lot in advance!
Samuel.
_______________________________________________
SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list
sr-users(a)lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
Next Kamailio Advanced Trainings 2014 - http://www.asipto.com
Sep 22-25, Berlin, Germany ::: Oct 15-17, San Francisco, USA
27 Aug
27 Aug
10:12 a.m.
Here it goes, apologies for the length:
The registration process is done via TLS and therefore I "can not" post the
trace. However, the resulting data is the following:
AOR:: sam(a)domain.com
Contact:: sip:83652074@M.N.O.P:34120;transport=tls Q=
Expires:: 569
Callid:: iUcVvmbsda9Yu0DGUm4exTHiZYIqwgtZ
Cseq:: 2
User-agent:: Blink 0.9.1 (Linux)
Received:: sip:M.N.O.P:39961;transport=TLS
State:: CS_DIRTY
Flags:: 0
Cflag:: 64
Socket:: tls:X.Y.Z.W:5061
Methods:: 4294967295
Ruid:: uloc-53fc870d-1097-4
Instance:: <urn:uuid:d63b1c4f-d7dc-4f4e-87f1-948123266dc0>
Reg-Id:: 0
Last-Keepalive:: 1409121941
Last-Modified:: 1409121941
The call trace is the following (Trying and Ringing messages removed for
simplicity):
U A.B.C.D:5060 -> X.Y.Z.W:5060
INVITE sip:999666222@pstn.domain.com SIP/2.0..Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
A.B.C.D:5060;branch=z9hG4bK222c6640..Max-Forwards: 70..From: "111222333"
<sip:111222333@A.B.C.D>;tag=as1a7b4c7d..To:
<sip:999666222@pstn.domain.com>..Contact:
<sip:111222333@A.B.C.D:5060>..Call-ID: 59f5
579c01f8039243ec830d317df994@A.B.C.D:5060..CSeq: 102 INVITE..User-Agent:
IPXAdam..Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 06:45:54 GMT..Allow: INVITE, ACK, CANCEL,
OPTIONS, BYE, REFER, SUBSCRIBE, NOTIFY, INFO, PUBLISH..Supported: replaces,
timer..Content-Type: application/sdp..Content-Length: 311....v=0..o=root
936120945 936120945 IN IP4 A.B.C.D..s=Asterisk PBX 11.6-cert2..c=IN IP4
A.B.C.D..t=0 0..m=audio 12018 RTP/AVP 8 3 0 101..a=rtpmap:8
PCMA/8000..a=rtpmap:3 GSM/8000..a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000..a=rtpmap:101
telephone-event/8000..a=fmtp:101 0-16..a=silenceSupp:off - - -
-..a=ptime:20..a=sendrecv..
U X.Y.Z.W:5060 -> A.B.C.D:5060
SIP/2.0 200 OK..Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
A.B.C.D:5060;rport=5060;branch=z9hG4bK222c6640..Record-Route:
<sip:X.Y.Z.W:5061;transport=tls;lr;r2=on;fdrrm=82.63f;nat=yes>..Record-Route:
<sip:X.Y.Z.W;lr;r2=on;fdrrm=82.63f;nat=yes>..Call-ID:
59f5579c01f8039243ec830d317df994@A.B.C.D:5060..From: "111222333"
<sip:111222333@A.B.C.D>;tag=as1a7b4c7d..To:
<sip:999666222@pstn.domain.com>;tag=GcH-CAWXaNVzm0W314zxJF518oM-Okco..CSeq:
102 INVITE..Server: Blink 0.9.1 (Linux)..Allow: SUBSCRIBE, NOTIFY, PRACK,
INVITE, ACK, BYE, CANCEL, UPDATE, MESSAGE, REFER..Contact:
<sip:sam@M.N.O.P:39961;transport=tls;gr=urn:uuid:d63b1c4f-d7dc-4f4e-87f1-948123266dc0>..Supported:
100rel, replaces, norefersub, gruu..Content-Type:
application/sdp..Content-Length: 236....v=0..o=- 3618110757 3618110758 IN
IP4 M.N.O.P..s=Blink 0.9.1 (Linux)..t=0 0..m=audio 50002 RTP/AVP 8
101..c=IN IP4 M.N.O.P..a=
rtcp:50003..a=rtpmap:8 PCMA/8000..a=rtpmap:101
telephone-event/8000..a=fmtp:101 0-15..a=sendrecv..
U A.B.C.D:5060 -> X.Y.Z.W:5060
ACK sip:sam@M.N.O.P:39961;transport=tls;gr=urn:uuid:d63b1c4f-d7dc-4f4e-87f1-948123266dc0
SIP/2.0..Via: SIP/2.0/UDP A.B.C.D:5060;branch=z9hG4bK22a00025..Route:
<sip:X.Y.Z.W;lr;r2=on;fdrrm=82.63f;nat=yes>,<sip:X.Y.Z.W:5061;transport=tls;lr;r2=on;fdrrm=82.63f;nat=yes>..Max-Forwards:
70..
From: "111222333" <sip:111222333@A.B.C.D>;tag=as1a7b4c7d..To: <
sip:999666222@pstn.domain.com>;tag=GcH-CAWXaNVzm0W314zxJF518oM-Okco..Contact:
<sip:111222333@A.B.C.D:5060>..Call-ID:
59f5579c01f8039243ec830d317df994@A.B.C.D:5060..CSeq: 102 ACK..User-Agent:
IPXAdam..Content-Length:0....
What I was refering to is that in the logs the lookup process is using
sip:sam@M.N.O.P, which is not found because what exists in the registrar
database is sam(a)domain.com. In the Contact header of the 200 OK the local
IP is used instead of the FQDN form. I might have been misleaded by the
logs or the gruu lookup process, but in the following lines of the code
(you were right about the lines and verion):
The first log ouput comes from the following lines of lookup.c:
120 if(puri.gr_val.len>0) {
121 /* pub-gruu */
122 inst = puri.gr_val;
123 LM_DBG("looking up pub gruu [%.*s]\n",
inst.len, inst.s);
But afterwards, there are these lines, with the return -1 statement:
154 /* aor or pub-gruu lookup */
155 ul.lock_udomain(_d, &aor);
156 res = ul.get_urecord(_d, &aor, &r);
157 if (res > 0) {
158 LM_DBG("'%.*s' Not found in usrloc\n",
aor.len, ZSW(aor.s));
159 ul.unlock_udomain(_d, &aor);
160 return -1;
161 }
162
This is the point where I would need expertise help, because it looks like
it uses the "short" AoR (without URI gruu parameters) according to the logs
and a -1 is returned. Afterwards there are the lines used to lookup the pub
and temp gruu but are not, as far as I understand, used because of the
return -1.
What is my mistake in the above assumption?
Thanks a lot for the amazing fast reply.
Samuel.
On 26 August 2014 18:22, Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hello,
can you send a trace that includes the registration as well as the call?
The pub-gruu is using the AoR, iirc.
Also, the line you refer to is not matching anymore with latest 4.1.x --
paste the code around it to locate it properly.
Cheers,
Daniel
On 26/08/14 18:05, samuel wrote:
Hi all,
I'm having some issues treating requests within dialogs with gruu enabled
with kamailio 4.1.2.
I've got the "standard" configuration of WITHIN route with the adition of
the next lines:
if(is_gruu()){
route(LOCATION);
};
before the the RELAY route call in the loose_route section.
The "problem" is that the ACK with a pub-gruu on the Req-URI is not
properly lookup. In the logs I can see the following statements:
2(4232) DEBUG: registrar [lookup.c:123]: lookup(): looking up pub gruu
[urn:uuid:d63b1c4f-d7dc-4f4e-87f1-948123266dc0]
2(4232) DEBUG: registrar [lookup.c:158]: lookup(): 'sam(a)A.B.C.D' Not
found in usrloc
Where A.B.C.D is the local IP of the UA.
Looking at the code, this last line looks like is looking for the
"standard" URI (username@domain) instead of using the pub gruu. Am I
right with this assumption or am I missing something from the code?
As far as I could look, it looks like there's an exit -1 statement in the
line 158 of lookup.c which disables the following gruu treatment.
Since the username with IP is not registered, this ACK is lost and the
sesion is not stablished (lost ACK).
Can anyone provide some hints why is this failing?
Thanks a lot in advance!
Samuel.
_______________________________________________
SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing
listsr-users@lists.sip-router.orghttp://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierlahttp://twitter.com/#!/miconda -
http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
Next Kamailio Advanced Trainings 2014 - http://www.asipto.com
Sep 22-25, Berlin, Germany ::: Oct 15-17, San Francisco, USA
_______________________________________________
SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list
sr-users(a)lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
1 Sep
1 Sep
4:33 p.m.
anoyone can provide information about how lookup function treats Req-URI
with gruu?
Thanks in advance,
Samuel.
On 27 August 2014 09:12, samuel <samu60(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Here it goes, apologies for the length:
The registration process is done via TLS and therefore I "can not" post
the trace. However, the resulting data is the following:
AOR:: sam(a)domain.com
Contact:: sip:83652074@M.N.O.P:34120;transport=tls Q=
Expires:: 569
Callid:: iUcVvmbsda9Yu0DGUm4exTHiZYIqwgtZ
Cseq:: 2
User-agent:: Blink 0.9.1 (Linux)
Received:: sip:M.N.O.P:39961;transport=TLS
State:: CS_DIRTY
Flags:: 0
Cflag:: 64
Socket:: tls:X.Y.Z.W:5061
Methods:: 4294967295
Ruid:: uloc-53fc870d-1097-4
Instance:: <urn:uuid:d63b1c4f-d7dc-4f4e-87f1-948123266dc0>
Reg-Id:: 0
Last-Keepalive:: 1409121941
Last-Modified:: 1409121941
The call trace is the following (Trying and Ringing messages removed for
simplicity):
U A.B.C.D:5060 -> X.Y.Z.W:5060
INVITE sip:999666222@pstn.domain.com SIP/2.0..Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
A.B.C.D:5060;branch=z9hG4bK222c6640..Max-Forwards: 70..From: "111222333"
<sip:111222333@A.B.C.D>;tag=as1a7b4c7d..To:
<sip:999666222@pstn.domain.com>..Contact:
<sip:111222333@A.B.C.D:5060>..Call-ID: 59f5
579c01f8039243ec830d317df994@A.B.C.D:5060..CSeq: 102 INVITE..User-Agent:
IPXAdam..Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 06:45:54 GMT..Allow: INVITE, ACK, CANCEL,
OPTIONS, BYE, REFER, SUBSCRIBE, NOTIFY, INFO, PUBLISH..Supported: replaces,
timer..Content-Type: application/sdp..Content-Length: 311....v=0..o=root
936120945 936120945 IN IP4 A.B.C.D..s=Asterisk PBX 11.6-cert2..c=IN IP4
A.B.C.D..t=0 0..m=audio 12018 RTP/AVP 8 3 0 101..a=rtpmap:8
PCMA/8000..a=rtpmap:3 GSM/8000..a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000..a=rtpmap:101
telephone-event/8000..a=fmtp:101 0-16..a=silenceSupp:off - - -
-..a=ptime:20..a=sendrecv..
U X.Y.Z.W:5060 -> A.B.C.D:5060
SIP/2.0 200 OK..Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
A.B.C.D:5060;rport=5060;branch=z9hG4bK222c6640..Record-Route:
<sip:X.Y.Z.W:5061;transport=tls;lr;r2=on;fdrrm=82.63f;nat=yes>..Record-Route:
<sip:X.Y.Z.W;lr;r2=on;fdrrm=82.63f;nat=yes>..Call-ID:
59f5579c01f8039243ec830d317df994@A.B.C.D:5060..From: "111222333"
<sip:111222333@A.B.C.D>;tag=as1a7b4c7d..To:
<sip:999666222@pstn.domain.com>;tag=GcH-CAWXaNVzm0W314zxJF518oM-Okco..CSeq:
102 INVITE..Server: Blink 0.9.1 (Linux)..Allow: SUBSCRIBE, NOTIFY, PRACK,
INVITE, ACK, BYE, CANCEL, UPDATE, MESSAGE, REFER..Contact:
<sip:sam@M.N.O.P:39961;transport=tls;gr=urn:uuid:d63b1c4f-d7dc-4f4e-87f1-948123266dc0>..Supported:
100rel, replaces, norefersub, gruu..Content-Type:
application/sdp..Content-Length: 236....v=0..o=- 3618110757 3618110758 IN
IP4 M.N.O.P..s=Blink 0.9.1 (Linux)..t=0 0..m=audio 50002 RTP/AVP 8
101..c=IN IP4 M.N.O.P..a=
rtcp:50003..a=rtpmap:8 PCMA/8000..a=rtpmap:101
telephone-event/8000..a=fmtp:101 0-15..a=sendrecv..
U A.B.C.D:5060 -> X.Y.Z.W:5060
ACK sip:sam@M.N.O.P:39961;transport=tls;gr=urn:uuid:d63b1c4f-d7dc-4f4e-87f1-948123266dc0
SIP/2.0..Via: SIP/2.0/UDP A.B.C.D:5060;branch=z9hG4bK22a00025..Route:
<sip:X.Y.Z.W;lr;r2=on;fdrrm=82.63f;nat=yes>,<sip:X.Y.Z.W:5061;transport=tls;lr;r2=on;fdrrm=82.63f;nat=yes>..Max-Forwards:
70..
From: "111222333" <sip:111222333@A.B.C.D>;tag=as1a7b4c7d..To: <
sip:999666222@pstn.domain.com>;tag=GcH-CAWXaNVzm0W314zxJF518oM-Okco..Contact:
<sip:111222333@A.B.C.D:5060>..Call-ID:
59f5579c01f8039243ec830d317df994@A.B.C.D:5060..CSeq: 102 ACK..User-Agent:
IPXAdam..Content-Length:0....
What I was refering to is that in the logs the lookup process is using
sip:sam@M.N.O.P, which is not found because what exists in the registrar
database is sam(a)domain.com. In the Contact header of the 200 OK the local
IP is used instead of the FQDN form. I might have been misleaded by the
logs or the gruu lookup process, but in the following lines of the code
(you were right about the lines and verion):
The first log ouput comes from the following lines of lookup.c:
120 if(puri.gr_val.len>0) {
121 /* pub-gruu */
122 inst = puri.gr_val;
123 LM_DBG("looking up pub gruu [%.*s]\n",
inst.len, inst.s);
But afterwards, there are these lines, with the return -1 statement:
154 /* aor or pub-gruu lookup */
155 ul.lock_udomain(_d, &aor);
156 res = ul.get_urecord(_d, &aor, &r);
157 if (res > 0) {
158 LM_DBG("'%.*s' Not found in usrloc\n",
aor.len, ZSW(aor.s));
159 ul.unlock_udomain(_d, &aor);
160 return -1;
161 }
162
This is the point where I would need expertise help, because it looks like
it uses the "short" AoR (without URI gruu parameters) according to the logs
and a -1 is returned. Afterwards there are the lines used to lookup the pub
and temp gruu but are not, as far as I understand, used because of the
return -1.
What is my mistake in the above assumption?
Thanks a lot for the amazing fast reply.
Samuel.
On 26 August 2014 18:22, Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Hello,
can you send a trace that includes the registration as well as the call?
The pub-gruu is using the AoR, iirc.
Also, the line you refer to is not matching anymore with latest 4.1.x --
paste the code around it to locate it properly.
Cheers,
Daniel
On 26/08/14 18:05, samuel wrote:
Hi all,
I'm having some issues treating requests within dialogs with gruu enabled
with kamailio 4.1.2.
I've got the "standard" configuration of WITHIN route with the adition
of the next lines:
if(is_gruu()){
route(LOCATION);
};
before the the RELAY route call in the loose_route section.
The "problem" is that the ACK with a pub-gruu on the Req-URI is not
properly lookup. In the logs I can see the following statements:
2(4232) DEBUG: registrar [lookup.c:123]: lookup(): looking up pub gruu
[urn:uuid:d63b1c4f-d7dc-4f4e-87f1-948123266dc0]
2(4232) DEBUG: registrar [lookup.c:158]: lookup(): 'sam(a)A.B.C.D' Not
found in usrloc
Where A.B.C.D is the local IP of the UA.
Looking at the code, this last line looks like is looking for the
"standard" URI (username@domain) instead of using the pub gruu. Am I
right with this assumption or am I missing something from the code?
As far as I could look, it looks like there's an exit -1 statement in the
line 158 of lookup.c which disables the following gruu treatment.
Since the username with IP is not registered, this ACK is lost and the
sesion is not stablished (lost ACK).
Can anyone provide some hints why is this failing?
Thanks a lot in advance!
Samuel.
_______________________________________________
SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing
listsr-users@lists.sip-router.orghttp://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierlahttp://twitter.com/#!/miconda -
http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
Next Kamailio Advanced Trainings 2014 - http://www.asipto.com
Sep 22-25, Berlin, Germany ::: Oct 15-17, San Francisco, USA
_______________________________________________
SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list
sr-users(a)lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
4:46 p.m.
Hello,
the problem is the contact coming with IP address and then used in r-uri
with IP. In a multi-domain deployment, you cannot assume what is the
right user id (sip address) to use in case of overlapping usernames.
Think about rather common multi-tenant scenario where the location can
be partitioned to different servers, based on domain.
AFAIK, in case GRUU is supported, the UA has to use the give GRUU URI as
contact for further requests. Kamailio is giving the domain and the UA
should use it as it is. So, for me it looks as an issue in the UA,
unless there is some other proxy in the middle changing the contact.
Of course, with the flexibility of kamailio you can fix it in the
config, like:
- if there is gr parameter to uri and the domain part is IP (see
siputils and ipops for appropriate functions to be used), then set $rd
to the domain of the user.
- the domain of the user can be discovered from various sources,
depending on local profile and signaling (e.g, From/To headers, do a
sql_query() over subscriber table, etc.)
Cheers,
Daniel
On 01/09/14 15:33, samuel wrote:
anoyone can provide information about how lookup
function treats
Req-URI with gruu?
Thanks in advance,
Samuel.
On 27 August 2014 09:12, samuel <samu60(a)gmail.com
<mailto:samu60@gmail.com>> wrote:
Here it goes, apologies for the length:
The registration process is done via TLS and therefore I "can not"
post the trace. However, the resulting data is the following:
AOR:: sam(a)domain.com <mailto:sam@domain.com>
Contact:: sip:83652074@M.N.O.P:34120;transport=tls Q=
Expires:: 569
Callid:: iUcVvmbsda9Yu0DGUm4exTHiZYIqwgtZ
Cseq:: 2
User-agent:: Blink 0.9.1 (Linux)
Received:: sip:M.N.O.P:39961;transport=TLS
State:: CS_DIRTY
Flags:: 0
Cflag:: 64
Socket:: tls:X.Y.Z.W:5061
Methods:: 4294967295
Ruid:: uloc-53fc870d-1097-4
Instance:: <urn:uuid:d63b1c4f-d7dc-4f4e-87f1-948123266dc0>
Reg-Id:: 0
Last-Keepalive:: 1409121941
Last-Modified:: 1409121941
The call trace is the following (Trying and Ringing messages
removed for simplicity):
U A.B.C.D:5060 -> X.Y.Z.W:5060
INVITE sip:999666222@pstn.domain.com
<mailto:sip%3A999666222@pstn.domain.com> SIP/2.0..Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
A.B.C.D:5060;branch=z9hG4bK222c6640..Max-Forwards: 70..From:
"111222333"
<sip:111222333@A.B.C.D>;tag=as1a7b4c7d..To:
<sip:999666222@pstn.domain.com
<mailto:sip%3A999666222@pstn.domain.com>>..Contact:
<sip:111222333@A.B.C.D:5060>..Call-ID: 59f5
579c01f8039243ec830d317df994@A.B.C.D:5060..CSeq: 102
INVITE..User-Agent: IPXAdam..Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 06:45:54
GMT..Allow: INVITE, ACK, CANCEL, OPTIONS, BYE, REFER, SUBSCRIBE,
NOTIFY, INFO, PUBLISH..Supported: replaces, timer..Content-Type:
application/sdp..Content-Length: 311....v=0..o=root 936120945
936120945 IN IP4 A.B.C.D..s=Asterisk PBX 11.6-cert2..c=IN IP4
A.B.C.D..t=0 0..m=audio 12018 RTP/AVP 8 3 0 101..a=rtpmap:8
PCMA/8000..a=rtpmap:3 GSM/8000..a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000..a=rtpmap:101
telephone-event/8000..a=fmtp:101 0-16..a=silenceSupp:off - - -
-..a=ptime:20..a=sendrecv..
U X.Y.Z.W:5060 -> A.B.C.D:5060
SIP/2.0 200 OK..Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
A.B.C.D:5060;rport=5060;branch=z9hG4bK222c6640..Record-Route:
<sip:X.Y.Z.W:5061;transport=tls;lr;r2=on;fdrrm=82.63f;nat=yes>..Record-Route:
<sip:X.Y.Z.W;lr;r2=on;fdrrm=82.63f;nat=yes>..Call-ID:
59f5579c01f8039243ec830d317df994@A.B.C.D:5060..From: "111222333"
<sip:111222333@A.B.C.D>;tag=as1a7b4c7d..To:
<sip:999666222@pstn.domain.com
<mailto:sip%3A999666222@pstn.domain.com>>;tag=GcH-CAWXaNVzm0W314zxJF518oM-Okco..CSeq:
102 INVITE..Server: Blink 0.9.1 (Linux)..Allow: SUBSCRIBE, NOTIFY,
PRACK, INVITE, ACK, BYE, CANCEL, UPDATE, MESSAGE, REFER..Contact:
<sip:sam@M.N.O.P:39961;transport=tls;gr=urn:uuid:d63b1c4f-d7dc-4f4e-87f1-948123266dc0>..Supported:
100rel, replaces, norefersub, gruu..Content-Type:
application/sdp..Content-Length: 236....v=0..o=- 3618110757
3618110758 IN IP4 M.N.O.P..s=Blink 0.9.1 (Linux)..t=0 0..m=audio
50002 RTP/AVP 8 101..c=IN IP4 M.N.O.P..a=
rtcp:50003..a=rtpmap:8 PCMA/8000..a=rtpmap:101
telephone-event/8000..a=fmtp:101 0-15..a=sendrecv..
U A.B.C.D:5060 -> X.Y.Z.W:5060
ACK
sip:sam@M.N.O.P:39961;transport=tls;gr=urn:uuid:d63b1c4f-d7dc-4f4e-87f1-948123266dc0
SIP/2.0..Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
A.B.C.D:5060;branch=z9hG4bK22a00025..Route:
<sip:X.Y.Z.W;lr;r2=on;fdrrm=82.63f;nat=yes>,<sip:X.Y.Z.W:5061;transport=tls;lr;r2=on;fdrrm=82.63f;nat=yes>..Max-Forwards:
70..
From: "111222333" <sip:111222333@A.B.C.D>;tag=as1a7b4c7d..To:
<sip:999666222@pstn.domain.com
<mailto:sip%3A999666222@pstn.domain.com>>;tag=GcH-CAWXaNVzm0W314zxJF518oM-Okco..Contact:
<sip:111222333@A.B.C.D:5060>..Call-ID:
59f5579c01f8039243ec830d317df994@A.B.C.D:5060..CSeq: 102
ACK..User-Agent: IPXAdam..Content-Length:0....
What I was refering to is that in the logs the lookup process is
using sip:sam@M.N.O.P, which is not found because what exists in
the registrar database is sam(a)domain.com <mailto:sam@domain.com>.
In the Contact header of the 200 OK the local IP is used instead
of the FQDN form. I might have been misleaded by the logs or the
gruu lookup process, but in the following lines of the code (you
were right about the lines and verion):
The first log ouput comes from the following lines of lookup.c:
120 if(puri.gr_val.len>0) {
121 /* pub-gruu */
122 inst = puri.gr_val;
123 LM_DBG("looking up pub gruu [%.*s]\n",
inst.len, inst.s);
But afterwards, there are these lines, with the return -1 statement:
154 /* aor or pub-gruu lookup */
155 ul.lock_udomain(_d, &aor);
156 res = ul.get_urecord(_d, &aor, &r);
157 if (res > 0) {
158 LM_DBG("'%.*s' Not found in
usrloc\n", aor.len, ZSW(aor.s));
159 ul.unlock_udomain(_d, &aor);
160 return -1;
161 }
162
This is the point where I would need expertise help, because it
looks like it uses the "short" AoR (without URI gruu parameters)
according to the logs and a -1 is returned. Afterwards there are
the lines used to lookup the pub and temp gruu but are not, as far
as I understand, used because of the return -1.
What is my mistake in the above assumption?
Thanks a lot for the amazing fast reply.
Samuel.
On 26 August 2014 18:22, Daniel-Constantin Mierla
<miconda(a)gmail.com <mailto:miconda@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hello,
can you send a trace that includes the registration as well as
the call?
The pub-gruu is using the AoR, iirc.
Also, the line you refer to is not matching anymore with
latest 4.1.x -- paste the code around it to locate it properly.
Cheers,
Daniel
On 26/08/14 18:05, samuel wrote:
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
Next Kamailio Advanced Trainings 2014 - http://www.asipto.com
Sep 22-25, Berlin, Germany ::: Oct 15-17, San Francisco, USA
Hi all,
I'm having some issues treating requests within dialogs with
gruu enabled with kamailio 4.1.2.
I've got the "standard" configuration of WITHIN route with
the adition of the next lines:
if(is_gruu()){
route(LOCATION);
};
before the the RELAY route call in the loose_route section.
The "problem" is that the ACK with a pub-gruu on the Req-URI
is not properly lookup. In the logs I can see the following
statements:
2(4232) DEBUG: registrar [lookup.c:123]: lookup(): looking
up pub gruu [urn:uuid:d63b1c4f-d7dc-4f4e-87f1-948123266dc0]
2(4232) DEBUG: registrar [lookup.c:158]: lookup():
'sam(a)A.B.C.D <mailto:sam@A.B.C.D>' Not found in usrloc
Where A.B.C.D is the local IP of the UA.
Looking at the code, this last line looks like is looking for
the "standard" URI (username@domain) instead of using the pub
gruu. Am I right with this assumption or am I missing
something from the code?
As far as I could look, it looks like there's an exit -1
statement in the line 158 of lookup.c which disables the
following gruu treatment.
Since the username with IP is not registered, this ACK is
lost and the sesion is not stablished (lost ACK).
Can anyone provide some hints why is this failing?
Thanks a lot in advance!
Samuel.
_______________________________________________
SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list
sr-users(a)lists.sip-router.org <mailto:sr-users@lists.sip-router.org>
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
http://twitter.com/#!/miconda <http://twitter.com/#%21/miconda>
-http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
Next Kamailio Advanced Trainings 2014 -http://www.asipto.com
Sep 22-25, Berlin, Germany ::: Oct 15-17, San Francisco, USA
_______________________________________________
SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users
mailing list
sr-users(a)lists.sip-router.org
<mailto:sr-users@lists.sip-router.org>
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
_______________________________________________
SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list
sr-users(a)lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
2 Sep
2 Sep
12:45 p.m.
It turned out to be the NAT handling process that screwed the gruu
treatment. Kamailio modified Contact from the OK (because this user is
marked as natted) and calling fix_nated_contact modified the Req-URI of
further in-dialog requests.
I have to look at the details but, using the standard config file as basic,
the NAT flags should no be marked if is_gruu is TRUE. Shall this be
included in the standard kamailio.cfg config file?
Thanks a lot for the answer!
Samuel.
On 1 September 2014 15:46, Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Hello,
the problem is the contact coming with IP address and then used in r-uri
with IP. In a multi-domain deployment, you cannot assume what is the right
user id (sip address) to use in case of overlapping usernames. Think about
rather common multi-tenant scenario where the location can be partitioned
to different servers, based on domain.
AFAIK, in case GRUU is supported, the UA has to use the give GRUU URI as
contact for further requests. Kamailio is giving the domain and the UA
should use it as it is. So, for me it looks as an issue in the UA, unless
there is some other proxy in the middle changing the contact.
Of course, with the flexibility of kamailio you can fix it in the config,
like:
- if there is gr parameter to uri and the domain part is IP (see siputils
and ipops for appropriate functions to be used), then set $rd to the domain
of the user.
- the domain of the user can be discovered from various sources, depending
on local profile and signaling (e.g, From/To headers, do a sql_query() over
subscriber table, etc.)
Cheers,
Daniel
On 01/09/14 15:33, samuel wrote:
anoyone can provide information about how lookup function treats Req-URI
with gruu?
Thanks in advance,
Samuel.
On 27 August 2014 09:12, samuel <samu60(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Here it goes, apologies for the length:
The registration process is done via TLS and therefore I "can not" post
the trace. However, the resulting data is the following:
AOR:: sam(a)domain.com
Contact:: sip:83652074@M.N.O.P:34120;transport=tls Q=
Expires:: 569
Callid:: iUcVvmbsda9Yu0DGUm4exTHiZYIqwgtZ
Cseq:: 2
User-agent:: Blink 0.9.1 (Linux)
Received:: sip:M.N.O.P:39961;transport=TLS
State:: CS_DIRTY
Flags:: 0
Cflag:: 64
Socket:: tls:X.Y.Z.W:5061
Methods:: 4294967295
Ruid:: uloc-53fc870d-1097-4
Instance:: <urn:uuid:d63b1c4f-d7dc-4f4e-87f1-948123266dc0>
Reg-Id:: 0
Last-Keepalive:: 1409121941
Last-Modified:: 1409121941
The call trace is the following (Trying and Ringing messages removed for
simplicity):
U A.B.C.D:5060 -> X.Y.Z.W:5060
INVITE sip:999666222@pstn.domain.com SIP/2.0..Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
A.B.C.D:5060;branch=z9hG4bK222c6640..Max-Forwards: 70..From: "111222333"
<sip:111222333@A.B.C.D>;tag=as1a7b4c7d..To: <
sip:999666222@pstn.domain.com>..Contact: <sip:111222333@A.B.C.D:5060>..Call-ID:
59f5
579c01f8039243ec830d317df994@A.B.C.D:5060..CSeq: 102 INVITE..User-Agent:
IPXAdam..Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 06:45:54 GMT..Allow: INVITE, ACK, CANCEL,
OPTIONS, BYE, REFER, SUBSCRIBE, NOTIFY, INFO, PUBLISH..Supported: replaces,
timer..Content-Type: application/sdp..Content-Length: 311....v=0..o=root
936120945 936120945 IN IP4 A.B.C.D..s=Asterisk PBX 11.6-cert2..c=IN IP4
A.B.C.D..t=0 0..m=audio 12018 RTP/AVP 8 3 0 101..a=rtpmap:8
PCMA/8000..a=rtpmap:3 GSM/8000..a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000..a=rtpmap:101
telephone-event/8000..a=fmtp:101 0-16..a=silenceSupp:off - - -
-..a=ptime:20..a=sendrecv..
U X.Y.Z.W:5060 -> A.B.C.D:5060
SIP/2.0 200 OK..Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
A.B.C.D:5060;rport=5060;branch=z9hG4bK222c6640..Record-Route:
<sip:X.Y.Z.W:5061;transport=tls;lr;r2=on;fdrrm=82.63f;nat=yes>..Record-Route:
<sip:X.Y.Z.W;lr;r2=on;fdrrm=82.63f;nat=yes>..Call-ID:
59f5579c01f8039243ec830d317df994@A.B.C.D:5060..From: "111222333"
<sip:111222333@A.B.C.D>;tag=as1a7b4c7d..To: <
sip:999666222@pstn.domain.com>;tag=GcH-CAWXaNVzm0W314zxJF518oM-Okco..CSeq:
102 INVITE..Server: Blink 0.9.1 (Linux)..Allow: SUBSCRIBE, NOTIFY, PRACK,
INVITE, ACK, BYE, CANCEL, UPDATE, MESSAGE, REFER..Contact:
<sip:sam@M.N.O.P:39961;transport=tls;gr=urn:uuid:d63b1c4f-d7dc-4f4e-87f1-948123266dc0>..Supported:
100rel, replaces, norefersub, gruu..Content-Type:
application/sdp..Content-Length: 236....v=0..o=- 3618110757 3618110758
IN IP4 M.N.O.P..s=Blink 0.9.1 (Linux)..t=0 0..m=audio 50002 RTP/AVP 8
101..c=IN IP4 M.N.O.P..a=
rtcp:50003..a=rtpmap:8 PCMA/8000..a=rtpmap:101
telephone-event/8000..a=fmtp:101 0-15..a=sendrecv..
U A.B.C.D:5060 -> X.Y.Z.W:5060
ACK
sip:sam@M.N.O.P:39961;transport=tls;gr=urn:uuid:d63b1c4f-d7dc-4f4e-87f1-948123266dc0
SIP/2.0..Via: SIP/2.0/UDP A.B.C.D:5060;branch=z9hG4bK22a00025..Route:
<sip:X.Y.Z.W;lr;r2=on;fdrrm=82.63f;nat=yes>,
<sip:X.Y.Z.W:5061;transport=tls;lr;r2=on;fdrrm=82.63f;nat=yes>..Max-Forwards:
70..
From: "111222333" <sip:111222333@A.B.C.D>;tag=as1a7b4c7d..To: <
sip:999666222@pstn.domain.com>;tag=GcH-CAWXaNVzm0W314zxJF518oM-Okco..Contact:
<sip:111222333@A.B.C.D:5060>..Call-ID:
59f5579c01f8039243ec830d317df994@A.B.C.D:5060..CSeq: 102
ACK..User-Agent: IPXAdam..Content-Length:0....
What I was refering to is that in the logs the lookup process is using
sip:sam@M.N.O.P, which is not found because what exists in the registrar
database is sam(a)domain.com. In the Contact header of the 200 OK the
local IP is used instead of the FQDN form. I might have been misleaded by
the logs or the gruu lookup process, but in the following lines of the code
(you were right about the lines and verion):
The first log ouput comes from the following lines of lookup.c:
120 if(puri.gr_val.len>0) {
121 /* pub-gruu */
122 inst = puri.gr_val;
123 LM_DBG("looking up pub gruu [%.*s]\n",
inst.len, inst.s);
But afterwards, there are these lines, with the return -1 statement:
154 /* aor or pub-gruu lookup */
155 ul.lock_udomain(_d, &aor);
156 res = ul.get_urecord(_d, &aor, &r);
157 if (res > 0) {
158 LM_DBG("'%.*s' Not found in usrloc\n",
aor.len, ZSW(aor.s));
159 ul.unlock_udomain(_d, &aor);
160 return -1;
161 }
162
This is the point where I would need expertise help, because it looks
like it uses the "short" AoR (without URI gruu parameters) according to the
logs and a -1 is returned. Afterwards there are the lines used to lookup
the pub and temp gruu but are not, as far as I understand, used because of
the return -1.
What is my mistake in the above assumption?
Thanks a lot for the amazing fast reply.
Samuel.
On 26 August 2014 18:22, Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
_______________________________________________
SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing
listsr-users@lists.sip-router.orghttp://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierlahttp://twitter.com/#!/miconda -
http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
Next Kamailio Advanced Trainings 2014 - http://www.asipto.com
Sep 22-25, Berlin, Germany ::: Oct 15-17, San Francisco, USA
_______________________________________________
SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list
sr-users(a)lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
Hello,
can you send a trace that includes the registration as well as the call?
The pub-gruu is using the AoR, iirc.
Also, the line you refer to is not matching anymore with latest 4.1.x --
paste the code around it to locate it properly.
Cheers,
Daniel
On 26/08/14 18:05, samuel wrote:
Hi all,
I'm having some issues treating requests within dialogs with gruu
enabled with kamailio 4.1.2.
I've got the "standard" configuration of WITHIN route with the adition
of the next lines:
if(is_gruu()){
route(LOCATION);
};
before the the RELAY route call in the loose_route section.
The "problem" is that the ACK with a pub-gruu on the Req-URI is not
properly lookup. In the logs I can see the following statements:
2(4232) DEBUG: registrar [lookup.c:123]: lookup(): looking up pub gruu
[urn:uuid:d63b1c4f-d7dc-4f4e-87f1-948123266dc0]
2(4232) DEBUG: registrar [lookup.c:158]: lookup(): 'sam(a)A.B.C.D' Not
found in usrloc
Where A.B.C.D is the local IP of the UA.
Looking at the code, this last line looks like is looking for the
"standard" URI (username@domain) instead of using the pub gruu. Am I
right with this assumption or am I missing something from the code?
As far as I could look, it looks like there's an exit -1 statement in
the line 158 of lookup.c which disables the following gruu treatment.
Since the username with IP is not registered, this ACK is lost and the
sesion is not stablished (lost ACK).
Can anyone provide some hints why is this failing?
Thanks a lot in advance!
Samuel.
_______________________________________________
SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing
listsr-users@lists.sip-router.orghttp://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierlahttp://twitter.com/#!/miconda -
http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
Next Kamailio Advanced Trainings 2014 - http://www.asipto.com
Sep 22-25, Berlin, Germany ::: Oct 15-17, San Francisco, USA
_______________________________________________
SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list
sr-users(a)lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
1:06 p.m.
Indeed it makes sense to skip contact mangling if gruu is present.
Cheers,
Daniel
On 02/09/14 11:45, samuel wrote:
It turned out to be the NAT handling process that
screwed the gruu
treatment. Kamailio modified Contact from the OK (because this user is
marked as natted) and calling fix_nated_contact modified the Req-URI
of further in-dialog requests.
I have to look at the details but, using the standard config file as
basic, the NAT flags should no be marked if is_gruu is TRUE. Shall
this be included in the standard kamailio.cfg config file?
Thanks a lot for the answer!
Samuel.
On 1 September 2014 15:46, Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda(a)gmail.com
<mailto:miconda@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hello,
the problem is the contact coming with IP address and then used in
r-uri with IP. In a multi-domain deployment, you cannot assume
what is the right user id (sip address) to use in case of
overlapping usernames. Think about rather common multi-tenant
scenario where the location can be partitioned to different
servers, based on domain.
AFAIK, in case GRUU is supported, the UA has to use the give GRUU
URI as contact for further requests. Kamailio is giving the domain
and the UA should use it as it is. So, for me it looks as an issue
in the UA, unless there is some other proxy in the middle changing
the contact.
Of course, with the flexibility of kamailio you can fix it in the
config, like:
- if there is gr parameter to uri and the domain part is IP (see
siputils and ipops for appropriate functions to be used), then set
$rd to the domain of the user.
- the domain of the user can be discovered from various sources,
depending on local profile and signaling (e.g, From/To headers, do
a sql_query() over subscriber table, etc.)
Cheers,
Daniel
On 01/09/14 15:33, samuel wrote:
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
Next Kamailio Advanced Trainings 2014 - http://www.asipto.com
Sep 22-25, Berlin, Germany ::: Oct 15-17, San Francisco, USA
anoyone can provide information about how
lookup function treats
Req-URI with gruu?
Thanks in advance,
Samuel.
On 27 August 2014 09:12, samuel <samu60(a)gmail.com
<mailto:samu60@gmail.com>> wrote:
Here it goes, apologies for the length:
The registration process is done via TLS and therefore I "can
not" post the trace. However, the resulting data is the
following:
AOR:: sam(a)domain.com <mailto:sam@domain.com>
Contact:: sip:83652074@M.N.O.P:34120;transport=tls Q=
Expires:: 569
Callid:: iUcVvmbsda9Yu0DGUm4exTHiZYIqwgtZ
Cseq:: 2
User-agent:: Blink 0.9.1 (Linux)
Received:: sip:M.N.O.P:39961;transport=TLS
State:: CS_DIRTY
Flags:: 0
Cflag:: 64
Socket:: tls:X.Y.Z.W:5061
Methods:: 4294967295
Ruid:: uloc-53fc870d-1097-4
Instance:: <urn:uuid:d63b1c4f-d7dc-4f4e-87f1-948123266dc0>
Reg-Id:: 0
Last-Keepalive:: 1409121941
Last-Modified:: 1409121941
The call trace is the following (Trying and Ringing messages
removed for simplicity):
U A.B.C.D:5060 -> X.Y.Z.W:5060
INVITE sip:999666222@pstn.domain.com
<mailto:sip%3A999666222@pstn.domain.com> SIP/2.0..Via:
SIP/2.0/UDP
A.B.C.D:5060;branch=z9hG4bK222c6640..Max-Forwards: 70..From:
"111222333"
<sip:111222333@A.B.C.D>;tag=as1a7b4c7d..To:
<sip:999666222@pstn.domain.com
<mailto:sip%3A999666222@pstn.domain.com>>..Contact:
<sip:111222333@A.B.C.D:5060>..Call-ID: 59f5
579c01f8039243ec830d317df994@A.B.C.D:5060..CSeq
<mailto:579c01f8039243ec830d317df994@A.B.C.D:5060..CSeq>: 102
INVITE..User-Agent: IPXAdam..Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 06:45:54
GMT..Allow: INVITE, ACK, CANCEL, OPTIONS, BYE, REFER,
SUBSCRIBE, NOTIFY, INFO, PUBLISH..Supported: replaces,
timer..Content-Type: application/sdp..Content-Length:
311....v=0..o=root 936120945 936120945 IN IP4
A.B.C.D..s=Asterisk PBX 11.6-cert2..c=IN IP4 A.B.C.D..t=0
0..m=audio 12018 RTP/AVP 8 3 0 101..a=rtpmap:8
PCMA/8000..a=rtpmap:3 GSM/8000..a=rtpmap:0
PCMU/8000..a=rtpmap:101 telephone-event/8000..a=fmtp:101
0-16..a=silenceSupp:off - - - -..a=ptime:20..a=sendrecv..
U X.Y.Z.W:5060 -> A.B.C.D:5060
SIP/2.0 200 OK..Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
A.B.C.D:5060;rport=5060;branch=z9hG4bK222c6640..Record-Route:
<sip:X.Y.Z.W:5061;transport=tls;lr;r2=on;fdrrm=82.63f;nat=yes>..Record-Route:
<sip:X.Y.Z.W;lr;r2=on;fdrrm=82.63f;nat=yes>..Call-ID:
59f5579c01f8039243ec830d317df994@A.B.C.D:5060..From
<mailto:59f5579c01f8039243ec830d317df994@A.B.C.D:5060..From>:
"111222333" <sip:111222333@A.B.C.D>;tag=as1a7b4c7d..To:
<sip:999666222@pstn.domain.com
<mailto:sip%3A999666222@pstn.domain.com>>;tag=GcH-CAWXaNVzm0W314zxJF518oM-Okco..CSeq:
102 INVITE..Server: Blink 0.9.1 (Linux)..Allow: SUBSCRIBE,
NOTIFY, PRACK, INVITE, ACK, BYE, CANCEL, UPDATE, MESSAGE,
REFER..Contact:
<sip:sam@M.N.O.P:39961;transport=tls;gr=urn:uuid:d63b1c4f-d7dc-4f4e-87f1-948123266dc0>..Supported:
100rel, replaces, norefersub, gruu..Content-Type:
application/sdp..Content-Length: 236....v=0..o=- 3618110757
<tel:3618110757> 3618110758 <tel:3618110758> IN IP4
M.N.O.P..s=Blink 0.9.1 (Linux)..t=0 0..m=audio 50002 RTP/AVP
8 101..c=IN IP4 M.N.O.P..a=
rtcp:50003..a=rtpmap:8 PCMA/8000..a=rtpmap:101
telephone-event/8000..a=fmtp:101 0-15..a=sendrecv..
U A.B.C.D:5060 -> X.Y.Z.W:5060
ACK
sip:sam@M.N.O.P:39961;transport=tls;gr=urn:uuid:d63b1c4f-d7dc-4f4e-87f1-948123266dc0
SIP/2.0..Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
A.B.C.D:5060;branch=z9hG4bK22a00025..Route:
<sip:X.Y.Z.W;lr;r2=on;fdrrm=82.63f;nat=yes>,<sip:X.Y.Z.W:5061;transport=tls;lr;r2=on;fdrrm=82.63f;nat=yes>..Max-Forwards:
70..
From: "111222333" <sip:111222333@A.B.C.D>;tag=as1a7b4c7d..To:
<sip:999666222@pstn.domain.com
<mailto:sip%3A999666222@pstn.domain.com>>;tag=GcH-CAWXaNVzm0W314zxJF518oM-Okco..Contact:
<sip:111222333@A.B.C.D:5060>..Call-ID:
59f5579c01f8039243ec830d317df994@A.B.C.D:5060..CSeq
<mailto:59f5579c01f8039243ec830d317df994@A.B.C.D:5060..CSeq>:
102 ACK..User-Agent: IPXAdam..Content-Length:0....
What I was refering to is that in the logs the lookup process
is using sip:sam@M.N.O.P, which is not found because what
exists in the registrar database is sam(a)domain.com
<mailto:sam@domain.com>. In the Contact header of the 200 OK
the local IP is used instead of the FQDN form. I might have
been misleaded by the logs or the gruu lookup process, but in
the following lines of the code (you were right about the
lines and verion):
The first log ouput comes from the following lines of lookup.c:
120 if(puri.gr_val.len>0) {
121 /* pub-gruu */
122 inst = puri.gr_val;
123 LM_DBG("looking up pub gruu [%.*s]\n", inst.len, inst.s);
But afterwards, there are these lines, with the return -1
statement:
154 /* aor or pub-gruu lookup */
155 ul.lock_udomain(_d, &aor);
156 res = ul.get_urecord(_d, &aor, &r);
157 if (res > 0) {
158 LM_DBG("'%.*s' Not found in usrloc\n", aor.len,
ZSW(aor.s));
159 ul.unlock_udomain(_d, &aor);
160 return -1;
161 }
162
This is the point where I would need expertise help, because
it looks like it uses the "short" AoR (without URI gruu
parameters) according to the logs and a -1 is returned.
Afterwards there are the lines used to lookup the pub and
temp gruu but are not, as far as I understand, used because
of the return -1.
What is my mistake in the above assumption?
Thanks a lot for the amazing fast reply.
Samuel.
On 26 August 2014 18:22, Daniel-Constantin Mierla
<miconda(a)gmail.com <mailto:miconda@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hello,
can you send a trace that includes the registration as
well as the call?
The pub-gruu is using the AoR, iirc.
Also, the line you refer to is not matching anymore with
latest 4.1.x -- paste the code around it to locate it
properly.
Cheers,
Daniel
On 26/08/14 18:05, samuel wrote:
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
http://twitter.com/#!/miconda <http://twitter.com/#%21/miconda>
-http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
Next Kamailio Advanced Trainings 2014 -http://www.asipto.com
Sep 22-25, Berlin, Germany ::: Oct 15-17, San Francisco, USA
_______________________________________________
SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing
list
sr-users(a)lists.sip-router.org <mailto:sr-users@lists.sip-router.org>
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
Hi all,
I'm having some issues treating requests within dialogs
with gruu enabled with kamailio 4.1.2.
I've got the "standard" configuration of WITHIN route
with the adition of the next lines:
if(is_gruu()){
route(LOCATION);
};
before the the RELAY route call in the loose_route section.
The "problem" is that the ACK with a pub-gruu on the
Req-URI is not properly lookup. In the logs I can see
the following statements:
2(4232) DEBUG: registrar [lookup.c:123]: lookup():
looking up pub gruu
[urn:uuid:d63b1c4f-d7dc-4f4e-87f1-948123266dc0]
2(4232) DEBUG: registrar [lookup.c:158]: lookup():
'sam(a)A.B.C.D <mailto:sam@A.B.C.D>' Not found in usrloc
Where A.B.C.D is the local IP of the UA.
Looking at the code, this last line looks like is
looking for the "standard" URI (username@domain) instead
of using the pub gruu. Am I right with this assumption
or am I missing something from the code?
As far as I could look, it looks like there's an exit -1
statement in the line 158 of lookup.c which disables the
following gruu treatment.
Since the username with IP is not registered, this ACK
is lost and the sesion is not stablished (lost ACK).
Can anyone provide some hints why is this failing?
Thanks a lot in advance!
Samuel.
_______________________________________________
SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list
sr-users(a)lists.sip-router.org <mailto:sr-users@lists.sip-router.org>
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
http://twitter.com/#!/miconda <http://twitter.com/#%21/miconda>
-http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
Next Kamailio Advanced Trainings 2014 -http://www.asipto.com
Sep 22-25, Berlin, Germany ::: Oct 15-17, San Francisco, USA
_______________________________________________
SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) -
sr-users mailing list
sr-users(a)lists.sip-router.org
<mailto:sr-users@lists.sip-router.org>
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
_______________________________________________
SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list
sr-users(a)lists.sip-router.org <mailto:sr-users@lists.sip-router.org>
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
1:28 p.m.
As a complete "guide" to set up gruu handling, I've added below is_gruu
treatment in WITHINDLG, NATMANAGE, and NATDETECT routes.
# Handle requests within SIP dialogs
route[WITHINDLG] {
if (has_totag()) {
(...)
if(is_gruu()){
route(LOCATION);
};
route(RELAY);
# RTPProxy control
route[NATMANAGE] {
(...)
if (is_reply()) {
if(isbflagset(FLB_NATB)) {
if(!is_gruu((a)contact.uri)){
fix_nated_contact();
};
}
}
}
# Caller NAT detection route
route[NATDETECT] {
#!ifdef WITH_NAT
force_rport();
if (nat_uac_test("19")) {
if (is_method("REGISTER")) {
fix_nated_register();
} else {
if(!is_gruu((a)contact.uri)){
fix_nated_contact();
};
}
setflag(FLT_NATS);
}
#!endif
return;
}
If someone can take a look, is there any missing point about this feature
that shall be included in the default config file?
Thanks a lot for the time spent and the fast reply!
Samuel.
On 2 September 2014 12:06, Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Indeed it makes sense to skip contact mangling if
gruu is present.
Cheers,
Daniel
On 02/09/14 11:45, samuel wrote:
It turned out to be the NAT handling process that screwed the gruu
treatment. Kamailio modified Contact from the OK (because this user is
marked as natted) and calling fix_nated_contact modified the Req-URI of
further in-dialog requests.
I have to look at the details but, using the standard config file as
basic, the NAT flags should no be marked if is_gruu is TRUE. Shall this be
included in the standard kamailio.cfg config file?
Thanks a lot for the answer!
Samuel.
On 1 September 2014 15:46, Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Hello,
the problem is the contact coming with IP address and then used in r-uri
with IP. In a multi-domain deployment, you cannot assume what is the right
user id (sip address) to use in case of overlapping usernames. Think about
rather common multi-tenant scenario where the location can be partitioned
to different servers, based on domain.
AFAIK, in case GRUU is supported, the UA has to use the give GRUU URI as
contact for further requests. Kamailio is giving the domain and the UA
should use it as it is. So, for me it looks as an issue in the UA, unless
there is some other proxy in the middle changing the contact.
Of course, with the flexibility of kamailio you can fix it in the config,
like:
- if there is gr parameter to uri and the domain part is IP (see siputils
and ipops for appropriate functions to be used), then set $rd to the domain
of the user.
- the domain of the user can be discovered from various sources,
depending on local profile and signaling (e.g, From/To headers, do a
sql_query() over subscriber table, etc.)
Cheers,
Daniel
On 01/09/14 15:33, samuel wrote:
anoyone can provide information about how lookup function treats
Req-URI with gruu?
Thanks in advance,
Samuel.
On 27 August 2014 09:12, samuel <samu60(a)gmail.com> wrote:
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierlahttp://twitter.com/#!/miconda -
http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
Next Kamailio Advanced Trainings 2014 - http://www.asipto.com
Sep 22-25, Berlin, Germany ::: Oct 15-17, San Francisco, USA
Here it goes, apologies for the length:
The registration process is done via TLS and therefore I "can not" post
the trace. However, the resulting data is the following:
AOR:: sam(a)domain.com
Contact:: sip:83652074@M.N.O.P:34120;transport=tls Q=
Expires:: 569
Callid:: iUcVvmbsda9Yu0DGUm4exTHiZYIqwgtZ
Cseq:: 2
User-agent:: Blink 0.9.1 (Linux)
Received:: sip:M.N.O.P:39961;transport=TLS
State:: CS_DIRTY
Flags:: 0
Cflag:: 64
Socket:: tls:X.Y.Z.W:5061
Methods:: 4294967295
Ruid:: uloc-53fc870d-1097-4
Instance:: <urn:uuid:d63b1c4f-d7dc-4f4e-87f1-948123266dc0>
Reg-Id:: 0
Last-Keepalive:: 1409121941
Last-Modified:: 1409121941
The call trace is the following (Trying and Ringing messages removed
for simplicity):
U A.B.C.D:5060 -> X.Y.Z.W:5060
INVITE sip:999666222@pstn.domain.com SIP/2.0..Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
A.B.C.D:5060;branch=z9hG4bK222c6640..Max-Forwards: 70..From: "111222333"
<sip:111222333@A.B.C.D>;tag=as1a7b4c7d..To: <
sip:999666222@pstn.domain.com>..Contact: <sip:111222333@A.B.C.D:5060>..Call-ID:
59f5
579c01f8039243ec830d317df994@A.B.C.D:5060..CSeq: 102
INVITE..User-Agent: IPXAdam..Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 06:45:54 GMT..Allow:
INVITE, ACK, CANCEL, OPTIONS, BYE, REFER, SUBSCRIBE, NOTIFY, INFO,
PUBLISH..Supported: replaces, timer..Content-Type:
application/sdp..Content-Length: 311....v=0..o=root 936120945 936120945 IN
IP4 A.B.C.D..s=Asterisk PBX 11.6-cert2..c=IN IP4 A.B.C.D..t=0 0..m=audio
12018 RTP/AVP 8 3 0 101..a=rtpmap:8 PCMA/8000..a=rtpmap:3
GSM/8000..a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000..a=rtpmap:101
telephone-event/8000..a=fmtp:101 0-16..a=silenceSupp:off - - -
-..a=ptime:20..a=sendrecv..
U X.Y.Z.W:5060 -> A.B.C.D:5060
SIP/2.0 200 OK..Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
A.B.C.D:5060;rport=5060;branch=z9hG4bK222c6640..Record-Route:
<sip:X.Y.Z.W:5061;transport=tls;lr;r2=on;fdrrm=82.63f;nat=yes>..Record-Route:
<sip:X.Y.Z.W;lr;r2=on;fdrrm=82.63f;nat=yes>..Call-ID:
59f5579c01f8039243ec830d317df994@A.B.C.D:5060..From: "111222333"
<sip:111222333@A.B.C.D>;tag=as1a7b4c7d..To: <
sip:999666222@pstn.domain.com>;tag=GcH-CAWXaNVzm0W314zxJF518oM-Okco..CSeq:
102 INVITE..Server: Blink 0.9.1 (Linux)..Allow: SUBSCRIBE, NOTIFY, PRACK,
INVITE, ACK, BYE, CANCEL, UPDATE, MESSAGE, REFER..Contact:
<sip:sam@M.N.O.P:39961;transport=tls;gr=urn:uuid:d63b1c4f-d7dc-4f4e-87f1-948123266dc0>..Supported:
100rel, replaces, norefersub, gruu..Content-Type:
application/sdp..Content-Length: 236....v=0..o=- 3618110757 3618110758
IN IP4 M.N.O.P..s=Blink 0.9.1 (Linux)..t=0 0..m=audio 50002 RTP/AVP 8
101..c=IN IP4 M.N.O.P..a=
rtcp:50003..a=rtpmap:8 PCMA/8000..a=rtpmap:101
telephone-event/8000..a=fmtp:101 0-15..a=sendrecv..
U A.B.C.D:5060 -> X.Y.Z.W:5060
ACK
sip:sam@M.N.O.P:39961;transport=tls;gr=urn:uuid:d63b1c4f-d7dc-4f4e-87f1-948123266dc0
SIP/2.0..Via: SIP/2.0/UDP A.B.C.D:5060;branch=z9hG4bK22a00025..Route:
<sip:X.Y.Z.W;lr;r2=on;fdrrm=82.63f;nat=yes>,
<sip:X.Y.Z.W:5061;transport=tls;lr;r2=on;fdrrm=82.63f;nat=yes>..Max-Forwards:
70..
From: "111222333" <sip:111222333@A.B.C.D>;tag=as1a7b4c7d..To: <
sip:999666222@pstn.domain.com>;tag=GcH-CAWXaNVzm0W314zxJF518oM-Okco..Contact:
<sip:111222333@A.B.C.D:5060>..Call-ID:
59f5579c01f8039243ec830d317df994@A.B.C.D:5060..CSeq: 102
ACK..User-Agent: IPXAdam..Content-Length:0....
What I was refering to is that in the logs the lookup process is using
sip:sam@M.N.O.P, which is not found because what exists in the
registrar database is sam(a)domain.com. In the Contact header of the 200
OK the local IP is used instead of the FQDN form. I might have been
misleaded by the logs or the gruu lookup process, but in the following
lines of the code (you were right about the lines and verion):
The first log ouput comes from the following lines of lookup.c:
120 if(puri.gr_val.len>0) {
121 /* pub-gruu */
122 inst = puri.gr_val;
123 LM_DBG("looking up pub gruu [%.*s]\n",
inst.len, inst.s);
But afterwards, there are these lines, with the return -1 statement:
154 /* aor or pub-gruu lookup */
155 ul.lock_udomain(_d, &aor);
156 res = ul.get_urecord(_d, &aor, &r);
157 if (res > 0) {
158 LM_DBG("'%.*s' Not found in usrloc\n",
aor.len, ZSW(aor.s));
159 ul.unlock_udomain(_d, &aor);
160 return -1;
161 }
162
This is the point where I would need expertise help, because it looks
like it uses the "short" AoR (without URI gruu parameters) according to the
logs and a -1 is returned. Afterwards there are the lines used to lookup
the pub and temp gruu but are not, as far as I understand, used because of
the return -1.
What is my mistake in the above assumption?
Thanks a lot for the amazing fast reply.
Samuel.
On 26 August 2014 18:22, Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
_______________________________________________
SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing
listsr-users@lists.sip-router.orghttp://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierlahttp://twitter.com/#!/miconda -
http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
Next Kamailio Advanced Trainings 2014 - http://www.asipto.com
Sep 22-25, Berlin, Germany ::: Oct 15-17, San Francisco, USA
_______________________________________________
SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list
sr-users(a)lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
Hello,
can you send a trace that includes the registration as well as the call?
The pub-gruu is using the AoR, iirc.
Also, the line you refer to is not matching anymore with latest 4.1.x
-- paste the code around it to locate it properly.
Cheers,
Daniel
On 26/08/14 18:05, samuel wrote:
Hi all,
I'm having some issues treating requests within dialogs with gruu
enabled with kamailio 4.1.2.
I've got the "standard" configuration of WITHIN route with the adition
of the next lines:
if(is_gruu()){
route(LOCATION);
};
before the the RELAY route call in the loose_route section.
The "problem" is that the ACK with a pub-gruu on the Req-URI is not
properly lookup. In the logs I can see the following statements:
2(4232) DEBUG: registrar [lookup.c:123]: lookup(): looking up pub gruu
[urn:uuid:d63b1c4f-d7dc-4f4e-87f1-948123266dc0]
2(4232) DEBUG: registrar [lookup.c:158]: lookup(): 'sam(a)A.B.C.D' Not
found in usrloc
Where A.B.C.D is the local IP of the UA.
Looking at the code, this last line looks like is looking for the
"standard" URI (username@domain) instead of using the pub gruu. Am I
right with this assumption or am I missing something from the code?
As far as I could look, it looks like there's an exit -1 statement in
the line 158 of lookup.c which disables the following gruu treatment.
Since the username with IP is not registered, this ACK is lost and the
sesion is not stablished (lost ACK).
Can anyone provide some hints why is this failing?
Thanks a lot in advance!
Samuel.
_______________________________________________
SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing
listsr-users@lists.sip-router.orghttp://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierlahttp://twitter.com/#!/miconda -
http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
Next Kamailio Advanced Trainings 2014 - http://www.asipto.com
Sep 22-25, Berlin, Germany ::: Oct 15-17, San Francisco, USA
_______________________________________________
SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list
sr-users(a)lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
30 Jan
30 Jan
12:31 a.m.
Hi,
If there is Path in the AOR then lookup("domain") adds Route header(s), the
additional route(s) breaks routing.
The work arround is to use reg_fetch_contacts(domain, uri, profile) and
match gr parameter from $ru with $ulc(profile=>instance) to find
$ulc(profile=>addr).
How about change behaviour and skip add Route within dialog in
lookup("domain") function or add optional parameter for this?
Regards,
SK
On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 12:28 PM, samuel <samu60(a)gmail.com> wrote:
As a complete "guide" to set up gruu
handling, I've added below is_gruu
treatment in WITHINDLG, NATMANAGE, and NATDETECT routes.
# Handle requests within SIP dialogs
route[WITHINDLG] {
if (has_totag()) {
(...)
if(is_gruu()){
route(LOCATION);
};
route(RELAY);
# RTPProxy control
route[NATMANAGE] {
(...)
if (is_reply()) {
if(isbflagset(FLB_NATB)) {
if(!is_gruu((a)contact.uri)){
fix_nated_contact();
};
}
}
}
# Caller NAT detection route
route[NATDETECT] {
#!ifdef WITH_NAT
force_rport();
if (nat_uac_test("19")) {
if (is_method("REGISTER")) {
fix_nated_register();
} else {
if(!is_gruu((a)contact.uri)){
fix_nated_contact();
};
}
setflag(FLT_NATS);
}
#!endif
return;
}
If someone can take a look, is there any missing point about this feature
that shall be included in the default config file?
Thanks a lot for the time spent and the fast reply!
Samuel.
On 2 September 2014 12:06, Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
--
MSC Seudin Kasumovic
Tuzla, Bosnia
Indeed it makes sense to skip contact mangling
if gruu is present.
Cheers,
Daniel
On 02/09/14 11:45, samuel wrote:
It turned out to be the NAT handling process that screwed the gruu
treatment. Kamailio modified Contact from the OK (because this user is
marked as natted) and calling fix_nated_contact modified the Req-URI of
further in-dialog requests.
I have to look at the details but, using the standard config file as
basic, the NAT flags should no be marked if is_gruu is TRUE. Shall this be
included in the standard kamailio.cfg config file?
Thanks a lot for the answer!
Samuel.
On 1 September 2014 15:46, Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
_______________________________________________
SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list
sr-users(a)lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
Hello,
the problem is the contact coming with IP address and then used in r-uri
with IP. In a multi-domain deployment, you cannot assume what is the right
user id (sip address) to use in case of overlapping usernames. Think about
rather common multi-tenant scenario where the location can be partitioned
to different servers, based on domain.
AFAIK, in case GRUU is supported, the UA has to use the give GRUU URI as
contact for further requests. Kamailio is giving the domain and the UA
should use it as it is. So, for me it looks as an issue in the UA, unless
there is some other proxy in the middle changing the contact.
Of course, with the flexibility of kamailio you can fix it in the
config, like:
- if there is gr parameter to uri and the domain part is IP (see
siputils and ipops for appropriate functions to be used), then set $rd to
the domain of the user.
- the domain of the user can be discovered from various sources,
depending on local profile and signaling (e.g, From/To headers, do a
sql_query() over subscriber table, etc.)
Cheers,
Daniel
On 01/09/14 15:33, samuel wrote:
anoyone can provide information about how lookup function treats
Req-URI with gruu?
Thanks in advance,
Samuel.
On 27 August 2014 09:12, samuel <samu60(a)gmail.com> wrote:
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierlahttp://twitter.com/#!/miconda -
http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
Next Kamailio Advanced Trainings 2014 - http://www.asipto.com
Sep 22-25, Berlin, Germany ::: Oct 15-17, San Francisco, USA
Here it goes, apologies for the length:
The registration process is done via TLS and therefore I "can not" post
the trace. However, the resulting data is the following:
AOR:: sam(a)domain.com
Contact:: sip:83652074@M.N.O.P:34120;transport=tls Q=
Expires:: 569
Callid:: iUcVvmbsda9Yu0DGUm4exTHiZYIqwgtZ
Cseq:: 2
User-agent:: Blink 0.9.1 (Linux)
Received:: sip:M.N.O.P:39961;transport=TLS
State:: CS_DIRTY
Flags:: 0
Cflag:: 64
Socket:: tls:X.Y.Z.W:5061
Methods:: 4294967295
Ruid:: uloc-53fc870d-1097-4
Instance:: <urn:uuid:d63b1c4f-d7dc-4f4e-87f1-948123266dc0>
Reg-Id:: 0
Last-Keepalive:: 1409121941
Last-Modified:: 1409121941
The call trace is the following (Trying and Ringing messages removed
for simplicity):
U A.B.C.D:5060 -> X.Y.Z.W:5060
INVITE sip:999666222@pstn.domain.com SIP/2.0..Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
A.B.C.D:5060;branch=z9hG4bK222c6640..Max-Forwards: 70..From: "111222333"
<sip:111222333@A.B.C.D>;tag=as1a7b4c7d..To: <
sip:999666222@pstn.domain.com>..Contact: <sip:111222333@A.B.C.D:5060>..Call-ID:
59f5
579c01f8039243ec830d317df994@A.B.C.D:5060..CSeq: 102
INVITE..User-Agent: IPXAdam..Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 06:45:54 GMT..Allow:
INVITE, ACK, CANCEL, OPTIONS, BYE, REFER, SUBSCRIBE, NOTIFY, INFO,
PUBLISH..Supported: replaces, timer..Content-Type:
application/sdp..Content-Length: 311....v=0..o=root 936120945 936120945 IN
IP4 A.B.C.D..s=Asterisk PBX 11.6-cert2..c=IN IP4 A.B.C.D..t=0 0..m=audio
12018 RTP/AVP 8 3 0 101..a=rtpmap:8 PCMA/8000..a=rtpmap:3
GSM/8000..a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000..a=rtpmap:101
telephone-event/8000..a=fmtp:101 0-16..a=silenceSupp:off - - -
-..a=ptime:20..a=sendrecv..
U X.Y.Z.W:5060 -> A.B.C.D:5060
SIP/2.0 200 OK..Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
A.B.C.D:5060;rport=5060;branch=z9hG4bK222c6640..Record-Route:
<sip:X.Y.Z.W:5061;transport=tls;lr;r2=on;fdrrm=82.63f;nat=yes>..Record-Route:
<sip:X.Y.Z.W;lr;r2=on;fdrrm=82.63f;nat=yes>..Call-ID:
59f5579c01f8039243ec830d317df994@A.B.C.D:5060..From: "111222333"
<sip:111222333@A.B.C.D>;tag=as1a7b4c7d..To: <
sip:999666222@pstn.domain.com>;tag=GcH-CAWXaNVzm0W314zxJF518oM-Okco..CSeq:
102 INVITE..Server: Blink 0.9.1 (Linux)..Allow: SUBSCRIBE, NOTIFY, PRACK,
INVITE, ACK, BYE, CANCEL, UPDATE, MESSAGE, REFER..Contact:
<sip:sam@M.N.O.P:39961;transport=tls;gr=urn:uuid:d63b1c4f-d7dc-4f4e-87f1-948123266dc0>..Supported:
100rel, replaces, norefersub, gruu..Content-Type:
application/sdp..Content-Length: 236....v=0..o=- 3618110757
3618110758 IN IP4 M.N.O.P..s=Blink 0.9.1 (Linux)..t=0 0..m=audio 50002
RTP/AVP 8 101..c=IN IP4 M.N.O.P..a=
rtcp:50003..a=rtpmap:8 PCMA/8000..a=rtpmap:101
telephone-event/8000..a=fmtp:101 0-15..a=sendrecv..
U A.B.C.D:5060 -> X.Y.Z.W:5060
ACK
sip:sam@M.N.O.P:39961;transport=tls;gr=urn:uuid:d63b1c4f-d7dc-4f4e-87f1-948123266dc0
SIP/2.0..Via: SIP/2.0/UDP A.B.C.D:5060;branch=z9hG4bK22a00025..Route:
<sip:X.Y.Z.W;lr;r2=on;fdrrm=82.63f;nat=yes>,
<sip:X.Y.Z.W:5061;transport=tls;lr;r2=on;fdrrm=82.63f;nat=yes>..Max-Forwards:
70..
From: "111222333" <sip:111222333@A.B.C.D>;tag=as1a7b4c7d..To: <
sip:999666222@pstn.domain.com>;tag=GcH-CAWXaNVzm0W314zxJF518oM-Okco..Contact:
<sip:111222333@A.B.C.D:5060>..Call-ID:
59f5579c01f8039243ec830d317df994@A.B.C.D:5060..CSeq: 102
ACK..User-Agent: IPXAdam..Content-Length:0....
What I was refering to is that in the logs the lookup process is using
sip:sam@M.N.O.P, which is not found because what exists in the
registrar database is sam(a)domain.com. In the Contact header of the 200
OK the local IP is used instead of the FQDN form. I might have been
misleaded by the logs or the gruu lookup process, but in the following
lines of the code (you were right about the lines and verion):
The first log ouput comes from the following lines of lookup.c:
120 if(puri.gr_val.len>0) {
121 /* pub-gruu */
122 inst = puri.gr_val;
123 LM_DBG("looking up pub gruu [%.*s]\n",
inst.len, inst.s);
But afterwards, there are these lines, with the return -1 statement:
154 /* aor or pub-gruu lookup */
155 ul.lock_udomain(_d, &aor);
156 res = ul.get_urecord(_d, &aor, &r);
157 if (res > 0) {
158 LM_DBG("'%.*s' Not found in usrloc\n",
aor.len, ZSW(aor.s));
159 ul.unlock_udomain(_d, &aor);
160 return -1;
161 }
162
This is the point where I would need expertise help, because it looks
like it uses the "short" AoR (without URI gruu parameters) according to the
logs and a -1 is returned. Afterwards there are the lines used to lookup
the pub and temp gruu but are not, as far as I understand, used because of
the return -1.
What is my mistake in the above assumption?
Thanks a lot for the amazing fast reply.
Samuel.
On 26 August 2014 18:22, Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> can you send a trace that includes the registration as well as the
> call?
>
> The pub-gruu is using the AoR, iirc.
>
> Also, the line you refer to is not matching anymore with latest 4.1.x
> -- paste the code around it to locate it properly.
>
> Cheers,
> Daniel
>
>
> On 26/08/14 18:05, samuel wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I'm having some issues treating requests within dialogs with gruu
> enabled with kamailio 4.1.2.
>
> I've got the "standard" configuration of WITHIN route with the
> adition of the next lines:
>
> if(is_gruu()){
> route(LOCATION);
> };
>
> before the the RELAY route call in the loose_route section.
>
> The "problem" is that the ACK with a pub-gruu on the Req-URI is not
> properly lookup. In the logs I can see the following statements:
> 2(4232) DEBUG: registrar [lookup.c:123]: lookup(): looking up pub
> gruu [urn:uuid:d63b1c4f-d7dc-4f4e-87f1-948123266dc0]
> 2(4232) DEBUG: registrar [lookup.c:158]: lookup(): 'sam(a)A.B.C.D' Not
> found in usrloc
>
> Where A.B.C.D is the local IP of the UA.
>
> Looking at the code, this last line looks like is looking for the
> "standard" URI (username@domain) instead of using the pub gruu. Am I
> right with this assumption or am I missing something from the code?
> As far as I could look, it looks like there's an exit -1 statement in
> the line 158 of lookup.c which disables the following gruu treatment.
>
> Since the username with IP is not registered, this ACK is lost and
> the sesion is not stablished (lost ACK).
>
> Can anyone provide some hints why is this failing?
>
> Thanks a lot in advance!
> Samuel.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing
listsr-users@lists.sip-router.orghttp://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
>
>
> --
> Daniel-Constantin Mierlahttp://twitter.com/#!/miconda -
http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
> Next Kamailio Advanced Trainings 2014 - http://www.asipto.com
> Sep 22-25, Berlin, Germany ::: Oct 15-17, San Francisco, USA
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list
> sr-users(a)lists.sip-router.org
> http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
>
>
_______________________________________________
SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing
listsr-users@lists.sip-router.orghttp://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierlahttp://twitter.com/#!/miconda -
http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
Next Kamailio Advanced Trainings 2014 - http://www.asipto.com
Sep 22-25, Berlin, Germany ::: Oct 15-17, San Francisco, USA
_______________________________________________
SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list
sr-users(a)lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
3588
days inactive
3744
days old
8 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Daniel-Constantin Mierla -
samuel -
Seudin Kasumovic