20 Sep
2012
20 Sep
'12
10:14 p.m.
when proxy gets ack to invite, it spits out this kind of error message:
Sep 20 22:03:35 wheezy2 /usr/sbin/sip-proxy[4575]: INFO: processing ACK
<sip:jh@192.98.103.10:5074>
Sep 20 22:03:35 wheezy2 /usr/sbin/sip-proxy[4575]: WARNING: rr [loose.c:744]: no socket
found for match second RR
route headers in the request are:
Route: <sip:192.98.103.10:5060;transport=tcp;r2=on;ftag=43884fd989cff6dc;lr>
Route: <sip:192.98.103.10:5060;r2=on;ftag=43884fd989cff6dc;lr>
and when i start the proxy it tells this:
Listening on
udp: 192.98.103.2 [192.98.103.2]:5070
udp: 127.0.0.1:5072
tcp: 192.98.103.2 [192.98.103.2]:5070
tcp: 127.0.0.1:5072
tcp: 127.0.0.1:6060
Aliases:
*: 192.98.103.10:5060
*: sip.test.fi:5060
why does loose_route() not find the first alias?
-- juha
21 Sep
21 Sep
10:32 a.m.
Hello,
On 9/20/12 9:14 PM, Juha Heinanen wrote:
when proxy gets ack to invite, it spits out this kind
of error message:
Sep 20 22:03:35 wheezy2 /usr/sbin/sip-proxy[4575]: INFO: processing ACK
<sip:jh@192.98.103.10:5074>
Sep 20 22:03:35 wheezy2 /usr/sbin/sip-proxy[4575]: WARNING: rr [loose.c:744]: no socket
found for match second RR
route headers in the request are:
Route: <sip:192.98.103.10:5060;transport=tcp;r2=on;ftag=43884fd989cff6dc;lr>
Route: <sip:192.98.103.10:5060;r2=on;ftag=43884fd989cff6dc;lr>
and when i start the proxy it tells this:
Listening on
udp: 192.98.103.2 [192.98.103.2]:5070
udp: 127.0.0.1:5072
tcp: 192.98.103.2 [192.98.103.2]:5070
tcp: 127.0.0.1:5072
tcp: 127.0.0.1:6060
Aliases:
*: 192.98.103.10:5060
*: sip.test.fi:5060
why does loose_route() not find the first alias?
loose_route() matches the alias as
being local (myself condition), but
there is no relation between aliases and sockets, so searching a soket
using an alias value does not work.
The advertise for listen does what you need, if it fits in what you try
to achieve:
listen=IP1 advertise IP2
If Route has IP2 then the socket IP1 is used for relaying.
Cheers,
Daniel
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla - http://www.asipto.com
http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
Kamailio Advanced Training, Berlin, Nov 5-8, 2012 - http://asipto.com/u/kat
Kamailio Advanced Training, Miami, USA, Nov 12-14, 2012 - http://asipto.com/u/katu
11:38 a.m.
> why does loose_route() not find the first alias?
loose_route() matches the alias as being local (myself
condition), but
there is no relation between aliases and sockets, so searching a soket
using an alias value does not work.
ok, but i don't understand what loose_route() has to do with sockets at
all. it should just check if the topmost one or two route uris match
itself, and if they do, remove them from the set and then possibly set $du
from the next route uri (if any). it is then t_relay that needs to worry
about sockets.
The advertise for listen does what you need, if it
fits in what you try
to achieve:
listen=IP1 advertise IP2
If Route has IP2 then the socket IP1 is used for relaying.
i'll give it a try, but i'm worried about via changes.
the situation is such that proxy behind dispatched should be able to
execute loose_route() without errors when one or two topmost route headers
match ip and port of the dispatcher (not those of the proxy itself).
-- juha
11:50 a.m.
Hello,
On 9/21/12 10:38 AM, jh(a)tutpro.com wrote:
ok, but i don't understand what
loose_route() has to do with sockets at
all. it should just check if the topmost one or two route uris match
itself, and if they do, remove them from the set and then possibly set $du
from the next route uri (if any). it is then t_relay that needs to worry
about sockets. when there is double record-routing, the second is used to detect
outgoing socket, because it is the case of transport layer bridging.
Otherwise, for example, udp-tcp conversion will not work transparently
and send sockets would need to be forced manually.
Via headers
are for replies, which should go back through the same path
as the request, so it might break you case, because there will be two
Vias with the dispatcher IP.
It looks a bit strange for me that you add Record-Route to dispatcher
and then you want the proxy to consume the Routes, but I don't know what
you want to achieve. If there will be no transport layer bridging, so no
double record routing, all should go fine. Actually all should go fine
anyway, just a warning message is printed because loose routing is
expecting a local socket on double Route headers.
Cheers,
Daniel
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla - http://www.asipto.com
http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
Kamailio Advanced Training, Berlin, Nov 5-8, 2012 - http://asipto.com/u/kat
Kamailio Advanced Training, Miami, USA, Nov 12-14, 2012 - http://asipto.com/u/katu
why does loose_route() not find the first alias?
loose_route() matches the alias as being local (myself condition), but
there is no relation between aliases and sockets, so searching a soket
using an alias value does not work. The advertise for listen does what you need, if
it fits in what you try
to achieve:
listen=IP1 advertise IP2
If Route has IP2 then the socket IP1 is used for relaying.
i'll give it a try,
but i'm worried about via changes.
the situation is such that proxy behind dispatched should be able to
execute loose_route() without errors when one or two topmost route headers
match ip and port of the dispatcher (not those of the proxy itself).
12:37 p.m.
Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes:
If there will be no transport layer bridging, so no
double record routing, all should go fine. Actually all should go fine
anyway, just a warning message is printed because loose routing is
expecting a local socket on double Route headers.
daniel,
yes, everything works fine, it is just that warning that i would like to
get rid of. is it ok to change it to debug? or perhaps loose_route
could have a param that tells it to skip the socket test?
-- juha
4:08 p.m.
On 9/21/12 11:37 AM, Juha Heinanen wrote:
Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes:
the second is better in
this case, because will avoid a loop through
local sockets. Also, your case is very rare, the warning is good to spot
if someone changed the uri in route headers.
Cheers,
Daniel
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla - http://www.asipto.com
http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
Kamailio Advanced Training, Berlin, Nov 5-8, 2012 - http://asipto.com/u/kat
Kamailio Advanced Training, Miami, USA, Nov 12-14, 2012 - http://asipto.com/u/katu
If there will be no transport layer bridging, so
no
double record routing, all should go fine. Actually all should go fine
anyway, just a warning message is printed because loose routing is
expecting a local socket on double Route headers.
daniel,
yes, everything works fine, it is just that warning that i would like to
get rid of. is it ok to change it to debug? or perhaps loose_route
could have a param that tells it to skip the socket test?
4:28 p.m.
Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes:
the second is better in this case, because will avoid
a loop through
local sockets. Also, your case is very rare, the warning is good to spot
if someone changed the uri in route headers.
daniel,
sorry about the noise. there is already rr mod param
enable_socket_mismatch_warning
which can be used to globally turn off the warning. it is at the moment
good enough for me, but a parameter could be added later that also
disables looking for the socket in cases when it is known not to be found.
-- juha
5:08 p.m.
Sorry Juha,
I forgot to reply to you that I added that warning in the code for the
same reason.
What do you mean by a parameter that disables looking for the socket?
-ovidiu
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Juha Heinanen <jh(a)tutpro.com> wrote:
Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes:
the second is better in this case, because will
avoid a loop through
local sockets. Also, your case is very rare, the warning is good to spot
if someone changed the uri in route headers.
daniel,
sorry about the noise. there is already rr mod param
enable_socket_mismatch_warning
which can be used to globally turn off the warning. it is at the moment
good enough for me, but a parameter could be added later that also
disables looking for the socket in cases when it is known not to be found.
-- juha
5:18 p.m.
Ovidiu Sas writes:
I forgot to reply to you that I added that warning in
the code for the
same reason.
What do you mean by a parameter that disables looking for the socket?
hi ovidiu,
the piece of code currently looks like this:
if (enable_double_rr && is_2rr(&puri.params)) {
/* double route may occure due different IP and port, so force as
* send interface the one advertise in second Route */
if (parse_uri(rt->nameaddr.uri.s,rt->nameaddr.uri.len,&puri)<0) {
LM_ERR("failed to parse the double route URI\n");
return RR_ERROR;
}
si = grep_sock_info( &puri.host, puri.port_no, puri.proto);
if (si) {
set_force_socket(_m, si);
} else {
if (enable_socket_mismatch_warning)f
LM_WARN("no socket found for match second RR\n");
}
when the "disable socket check" parameter would have been given either
globally or per loose_route() call, then this part of the code would not
be executed at all:
si = grep_sock_info( &puri.host, puri.port_no, puri.proto);
if (si) {
set_force_socket(_m, si);
} else {
if (enable_socket_mismatch_warning)f
LM_WARN("no socket found for match second RR\n");
}
which would save some cpu cycles.
-- juha
5:29 p.m.
It would need to be per loose_route() call, because a server can have
mixed traffic (real sockets only and real and advertised).
For real sockets, you would want to run the checks.
For advertised, you would not want to run the checks.
Then in the config, you will need to track calls through advertised
addresses and call appropriately loose_route().
Because of this, I implemented the warning disable parameter.
It is not optimal either, because for traffic through real sockets the
warning should be printed.
Regards.
Ovidiu Sas
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 10:18 AM, Juha Heinanen <jh(a)tutpro.com> wrote:
Ovidiu Sas writes:
I forgot to reply to you that I added that
warning in the code for the
same reason.
What do you mean by a parameter that disables looking for the socket?
hi ovidiu,
the piece of code currently looks like this:
if (enable_double_rr && is_2rr(&puri.params)) {
/* double route may occure due different IP and port, so force
as
* send interface the one advertise in second Route */
if
(parse_uri(rt->nameaddr.uri.s,rt->nameaddr.uri.len,&puri)<0) {
LM_ERR("failed to parse the double route
URI\n");
return RR_ERROR;
}
si = grep_sock_info( &puri.host, puri.port_no, puri.proto);
if (si) {
set_force_socket(_m, si);
} else {
if (enable_socket_mismatch_warning)f
LM_WARN("no socket found for match second
RR\n");
}
when the "disable socket check" parameter would have been given either
globally or per loose_route() call, then this part of the code would not
be executed at all:
si = grep_sock_info( &puri.host, puri.port_no, puri.proto);
if (si) {
set_force_socket(_m, si);
} else {
if (enable_socket_mismatch_warning)f
LM_WARN("no socket found for match second
RR\n");
}
which would save some cpu cycles.
-- juha
4448
days inactive
4449
days old
9 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Daniel-Constantin Mierla -
jh＠tutpro.com -
Juha Heinanen
-
Ovidiu Sas