Hi,
I am using SER rel 2_0_0 from CVS. I encountered the following situation. My scenario was the following:
UA -> Application Serwer -> SER -> UA
1. UA sent an INVITE message to the application server. 2. Application Server changed the Request URI and forwarded statelessly the INVITE message to SER. 3. Everything would be ok but SER replied to the Application server instead of the client. Application server changed only the Request URI and nothing else. Shouldn't SER sent the response according to the VIA header value?? I kindly ask for Your help.
Below is the ngrep: 192.168.0.112:5060 - this is application server 192.168.0.112:5061 - this is calling UA
U 2007/04/25 16:17:05.652934 192.168.0.112:5060 -> 192.168.0.165:5060 INVITE sip:sen@voip.rd.touk.pl SIP/2.0. Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.0.112:5061;rport=5061;branch=z9hG4bKhnrxbtgp;received=127.0.0.1. Max-Forwards: 70. To: sip:sen@voip.rd.touk.pl. From: sip:pz@voip.rd.touk.pl;tag=jlegd. Call-ID: pfnqwekjwtuxbfv@192.168.0.112. CSeq: 87 INVITE. Contact: sip:pz@192.168.0.112:5061. Content-Type: application/sdp. Allow: INVITE,ACK,BYE,CANCEL,OPTIONS,PRACK,REFER,NOTIFY,SUBSCRIBE,INFO. Supported: 100rel. User-Agent: Twinkle/0.9. Content-Length: 304. . v=0. o=pz 86411392 1733597180 IN IP4 192.168.0.112. s=-. c=IN IP4 192.168.0.112. t=0 0. m=audio 8000 RTP/AVP 98 97 8 0 3 101. a=rtpmap:98 speex/16000. a=rtpmap:97 speex/8000. a=rtpmap:8 PCMA/8000. a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000. a=rtpmap:3 GSM/8000. a=rtpmap:101 telephone-event/8000. a=fmtp:101 0-15. a=ptime:20.
# U 2007/04/25 16:17:05.699923 192.168.0.165:5060 -> 192.168.0.112:5060 SIP/2.0 407 Proxy Authentication Required. Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.0.112:5061;rport=5060;branch=z9hG4bKhnrxbtgp;received=127.0.0.1;received=192.168.0.112. To: sip:sen@voip.rd.touk.pl;tag=b27e1a1d33761e85846fc98f5f3a7e58.6a45. From: sip:pz@voip.rd.touk.pl;tag=jlegd. Call-ID: pfnqwekjwtuxbfv@192.168.0.112. CSeq: 87 INVITE. Proxy-Authenticate: Digest realm="voip.rd.touk.pl", nonce="462f640d527dfc442d53379e1f0167c8a12a583d", qop="auth". Server: Sip EXpress router (2.0.0-rc1 (x86_64/linux)). Content-Length: 0. Warning: 392 192.168.0.165:5060 "Noisy feedback tells: pid=20441 req_src_ip=192.168.0.112 req_src_port=5060 in_uri=sip:sen@voip.rd.touk.pl out_uri=sip:sen@voip.rd.touk.pl via_cnt==1". .
Cheers Tomasz
Replies take the same path as requests, no matter what kind of proxy there were on the way. SER replies to the address it detected in the transport layer (UDP/IP) of the request; the Via in your request will be used by the application server to send the reply back to the UA and not by SER; SER doesn't even look at that Via.
WL.
On 4/25/07, tzieleniewski tzieleniewski@o2.pl wrote:
Hi,
I am using SER rel 2_0_0 from CVS. I encountered the following situation. My scenario was the following:
UA -> Application Serwer -> SER -> UA
- UA sent an INVITE message to the application server.
- Application Server changed the Request URI and forwarded statelessly
the INVITE message to SER. 3. Everything would be ok but SER replied to the Application server instead of the client. Application server changed only the Request URI and nothing else. Shouldn't SER sent the response according to the VIA header value?? I kindly ask for Your help.
Below is the ngrep: 192.168.0.112:5060 - this is application server 192.168.0.112:5061 - this is calling UA
U 2007/04/25 16:17:05.652934 192.168.0.112:5060 -> 192.168.0.165:5060 INVITE sip:sen@voip.rd.touk.pl SIP/2.0. Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.0.112:5061 ;rport=5061;branch=z9hG4bKhnrxbtgp;received=127.0.0.1. Max-Forwards: 70. To: sip:sen@voip.rd.touk.pl. From: sip:pz@voip.rd.touk.pl;tag=jlegd. Call-ID: pfnqwekjwtuxbfv@192.168.0.112. CSeq: 87 INVITE. Contact: sip:pz@192.168.0.112:5061. Content-Type: application/sdp. Allow: INVITE,ACK,BYE,CANCEL,OPTIONS,PRACK,REFER,NOTIFY,SUBSCRIBE,INFO. Supported: 100rel. User-Agent: Twinkle/0.9. Content-Length: 304. . v=0. o=pz 86411392 1733597180 IN IP4 192.168.0.112. s=-. c=IN IP4 192.168.0.112. t=0 0. m=audio 8000 RTP/AVP 98 97 8 0 3 101. a=rtpmap:98 speex/16000. a=rtpmap:97 speex/8000. a=rtpmap:8 PCMA/8000. a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000. a=rtpmap:3 GSM/8000. a=rtpmap:101 telephone-event/8000. a=fmtp:101 0-15. a=ptime:20.
# U 2007/04/25 16:17:05.699923 192.168.0.165:5060 -> 192.168.0.112:5060 SIP/2.0 407 Proxy Authentication Required. Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.0.112:5061 ;rport=5060;branch=z9hG4bKhnrxbtgp;received=127.0.0.1;received= 192.168.0.112. To: sip:sen@voip.rd.touk.pl;tag=b27e1a1d33761e85846fc98f5f3a7e58.6a45. From: sip:pz@voip.rd.touk.pl;tag=jlegd. Call-ID: pfnqwekjwtuxbfv@192.168.0.112. CSeq: 87 INVITE. Proxy-Authenticate: Digest realm="voip.rd.touk.pl", nonce="462f640d527dfc442d53379e1f0167c8a12a583d", qop="auth". Server: Sip EXpress router (2.0.0-rc1 (x86_64/linux)). Content-Length: 0. Warning: 392 192.168.0.165:5060 "Noisy feedback tells: pid=20441 req_src_ip=192.168.0.112 req_src_port=5060 in_uri=sip:sen@voip.rd.touk.plout_uri= sip:sen@voip.rd.touk.pl via_cnt==1". .
Cheers Tomasz _______________________________________________ Serusers mailing list Serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
At 16:35 25/04/2007, tzieleniewski wrote:
Hi,
I am using SER rel 2_0_0 from CVS. I encountered the following situation. My scenario was the following:
UA -> Application Serwer -> SER -> UA
- UA sent an INVITE message to the application server.
- Application Server changed the Request URI and forwarded statelessly the INVITE message to SER.
- Everything would be ok but SER replied to the Application server instead of the client.
It can be that you meant to say something different, but that's standard SIP behqviour that you send a reply to the most immediate upstream entity (AS in this case).
Application server changed only the Request URI and nothing else. Shouldn't SER sent the response according to the VIA header value??
You mean to say that the AS didn't add its own Via in there?
That appear kind of odd to me, I would begin fixing there.
But if you think there is possibly some value in it, there is I believe an option in SER to send back literally to what is printed in Via (as opposed to reversely sending to previous hop's transport address). It is normally turned off, becasue Via content is frequently useless (e.g., due to presence of NATs).
Badly enough I don't recall the options' name and I'm offline right now to dig it out for you :-(
-jiri
I kindly ask for Your help.
Below is the ngrep: 192.168.0.112:5060 - this is application server 192.168.0.112:5061 - this is calling UA
U 2007/04/25 16:17:05.652934 192.168.0.112:5060 -> 192.168.0.165:5060 INVITE sip:sen@voip.rd.touk.pl SIP/2.0. Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.0.112:5061;rport=5061;branch=z9hG4bKhnrxbtgp;received=127.0.0.1. Max-Forwards: 70. To: sip:sen@voip.rd.touk.pl. From: sip:pz@voip.rd.touk.pl;tag=jlegd. Call-ID: pfnqwekjwtuxbfv@192.168.0.112. CSeq: 87 INVITE. Contact: sip:pz@192.168.0.112:5061. Content-Type: application/sdp. Allow: INVITE,ACK,BYE,CANCEL,OPTIONS,PRACK,REFER,NOTIFY,SUBSCRIBE,INFO. Supported: 100rel. User-Agent: Twinkle/0.9. Content-Length: 304. . v=0. o=pz 86411392 1733597180 IN IP4 192.168.0.112. s=-. c=IN IP4 192.168.0.112. t=0 0. m=audio 8000 RTP/AVP 98 97 8 0 3 101. a=rtpmap:98 speex/16000. a=rtpmap:97 speex/8000. a=rtpmap:8 PCMA/8000. a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000. a=rtpmap:3 GSM/8000. a=rtpmap:101 telephone-event/8000. a=fmtp:101 0-15. a=ptime:20.
# U 2007/04/25 16:17:05.699923 192.168.0.165:5060 -> 192.168.0.112:5060 SIP/2.0 407 Proxy Authentication Required. Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.0.112:5061;rport=5060;branch=z9hG4bKhnrxbtgp;received=127.0.0.1;received=192.168.0.112. To: sip:sen@voip.rd.touk.pl;tag=b27e1a1d33761e85846fc98f5f3a7e58.6a45. From: sip:pz@voip.rd.touk.pl;tag=jlegd. Call-ID: pfnqwekjwtuxbfv@192.168.0.112. CSeq: 87 INVITE. Proxy-Authenticate: Digest realm="voip.rd.touk.pl", nonce="462f640d527dfc442d53379e1f0167c8a12a583d", qop="auth". Server: Sip EXpress router (2.0.0-rc1 (x86_64/linux)). Content-Length: 0. Warning: 392 192.168.0.165:5060 "Noisy feedback tells: pid=20441 req_src_ip=192.168.0.112 req_src_port=5060 in_uri=sip:sen@voip.rd.touk.pl out_uri=sip:sen@voip.rd.touk.pl via_cnt==1". .
Cheers Tomasz _______________________________________________ Serusers mailing list Serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
-- Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/
At 16:35 25/04/2007, tzieleniewski wrote:
Hi,
I am using SER rel 2_0_0 from CVS. I encountered the following situation. My scenario was the following:
UA -> Application Serwer -> SER -> UA
- UA sent an INVITE message to the application server.
- Application Server changed the Request URI and forwarded statelessly the INVITE message to SER.
- Everything would be ok but SER replied to the Application server instead of the client.
It can be that you meant to say something different, but that's standard SIP behqviour that you send a reply to the most immediate upstream entity (AS in this case).
Application server changed only the Request URI and nothing else. Shouldn't SER sent the response according to the VIA header value??
You mean to say that the AS didn't add its own Via in there?
Yes, the aim was to apply some external to SER modifications on the SIP massage and then return it back to SER. It was suppose to be something like invocation of some external logic outside the SIP routing procedures.
That appear kind of odd to me, I would begin fixing there.
But if you think there is possibly some value in it, there is I believe an option in SER to send back literally to what is printed in Via (as opposed to reversely sending to previous hop's transport address). It is normally turned off, becasue Via content is frequently useless (e.g., due to presence of NATs).
Would be thanks full if you did:)
tomasz
Badly enough I don't recall the options' name and I'm offline right now to dig it out for you :-(
-jiri
I kindly ask for Your help.
Below is the ngrep: 192.168.0.112:5060 - this is application server 192.168.0.112:5061 - this is calling UA
U 2007/04/25 16:17:05.652934 192.168.0.112:5060 -> 192.168.0.165:5060 INVITE sip:sen@voip.rd.touk.pl SIP/2.0. Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.0.112:5061;rport=5061;branch=z9hG4bKhnrxbtgp;received=127.0.0.1. Max-Forwards: 70. To: sip:sen@voip.rd.touk.pl. From: sip:pz@voip.rd.touk.pl;tag=jlegd. Call-ID: pfnqwekjwtuxbfv@192.168.0.112. CSeq: 87 INVITE. Contact: sip:pz@192.168.0.112:5061. Content-Type: application/sdp. Allow: INVITE,ACK,BYE,CANCEL,OPTIONS,PRACK,REFER,NOTIFY,SUBSCRIBE,INFO. Supported: 100rel. User-Agent: Twinkle/0.9. Content-Length: 304. . v=0. o=pz 86411392 1733597180 IN IP4 192.168.0.112. s=-. c=IN IP4 192.168.0.112. t=0 0. m=audio 8000 RTP/AVP 98 97 8 0 3 101. a=rtpmap:98 speex/16000. a=rtpmap:97 speex/8000. a=rtpmap:8 PCMA/8000. a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000. a=rtpmap:3 GSM/8000. a=rtpmap:101 telephone-event/8000. a=fmtp:101 0-15. a=ptime:20.
# U 2007/04/25 16:17:05.699923 192.168.0.165:5060 -> 192.168.0.112:5060 SIP/2.0 407 Proxy Authentication Required. Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.0.112:5061;rport=5060;branch=z9hG4bKhnrxbtgp;received=127.0.0.1;received=192.168.0.112. To: sip:sen@voip.rd.touk.pl;tag=b27e1a1d33761e85846fc98f5f3a7e58.6a45. From: sip:pz@voip.rd.touk.pl;tag=jlegd. Call-ID: pfnqwekjwtuxbfv@192.168.0.112. CSeq: 87 INVITE. Proxy-Authenticate: Digest realm="voip.rd.touk.pl", nonce="462f640d527dfc442d53379e1f0167c8a12a583d", qop="auth". Server: Sip EXpress router (2.0.0-rc1 (x86_64/linux)). Content-Length: 0. Warning: 392 192.168.0.165:5060 "Noisy feedback tells: pid=20441 req_src_ip=192.168.0.112 req_src_port=5060 in_uri=sip:sen@voip.rd.touk.pl out_uri=sip:sen@voip.rd.touk.pl via_cnt==1". .
Cheers Tomasz _______________________________________________ Serusers mailing list Serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
-- Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/
At 11:48 30/04/2007, tzieleniewski wrote:
At 16:35 25/04/2007, tzieleniewski wrote:
Hi,
I am using SER rel 2_0_0 from CVS. I encountered the following situation. My scenario was the following:
UA -> Application Serwer -> SER -> UA
- UA sent an INVITE message to the application server.
- Application Server changed the Request URI and forwarded statelessly the INVITE message to SER.
- Everything would be ok but SER replied to the Application server instead of the client.
It can be that you meant to say something different, but that's standard SIP behqviour that you send a reply to the most immediate upstream entity (AS in this case).
Application server changed only the Request URI and nothing else. Shouldn't SER sent the response according to the VIA header value??
You mean to say that the AS didn't add its own Via in there?
Yes, the aim was to apply some external to SER modifications on the SIP massage and then return it back to SER. It was suppose to be something like invocation of some external logic outside the SIP routing procedures.
I would say it is a bit slippery slope to do this ...
That appear kind of odd to me, I would begin fixing there.
But if you think there is possibly some value in it, there is I believe an option in SER to send back literally to what is printed in Via (as opposed to reversely sending to previous hop's transport address). It is normally turned off, becasue Via content is frequently useless (e.g., due to presence of NATs).
Would be thanks full if you did:)
... but if you really want to try, set reply_to_via=1.
-jiri
-- Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/
That appear kind of odd to me, I would begin fixing there.
But if you think there is possibly some value in it, there is I believe an option in SER to send back literally to what is printed in Via (as opposed to reversely sending to previous hop's transport address). It is normally turned off, becasue Via content is frequently useless (e.g., due to presence of NATs).
Would be thanks full if you did:)
... but if you really want to try, set reply_to_via=1.
Not sure if it will work, as you can see from the capture, there are two received parameters in the reply.... so with the parameter set it will reply according the via ip:port, but it is also wrong as the first SER has added received=127.0.0.1.....
Just my $.02 Michal
-
Jiri Kuthan -
Michal Matyska -
tzieleniewski -
Weiter Leiter