29 Oct
2010
29 Oct
'10
6:55 p.m.
Kamailio 3.1 log is filled with lines like
Oct 29 03:32:46 west /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[632]: INFO: <script>: incoming
reply from udp:188.62.4.186:65333 SIP/2.0 404 Not Found Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
204.74.213.5:5060;branch=0 From: <sip:pinger@sip.callwithus.com>;tag=3993f0c
To: <sip:188.62.4.186:65333> Call-ID: aff32da5-89ef0136-71dc8c5(a)204.74.213.5
CSeq: 1 OPTIONS Content-Length: 0
Oct 29 03:32:46 west /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[632]: INFO: <core>
[forward.c:774]: broken reply to forward - no 2nd via
Shouldn't replies to NAT ping messages be silently dropped like in 1.4?
29 Oct
29 Oct
11:15 p.m.
On 10/29/2010 11:55 AM, Sergey Okhapkin wrote:
Kamailio 3.1 log is filled with lines like
Oct 29 03:32:46 west /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[632]: INFO:<script>: incoming
reply from udp:188.62.4.186:65333 SIP/2.0 404 Not Found Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
204.74.213.5:5060;branch=0 From:<sip:pinger@sip.callwithus.com>;tag=3993f0c
To:<sip:188.62.4.186:65333> Call-ID: aff32da5-89ef0136-71dc8c5(a)204.74.213.5
CSeq: 1 OPTIONS Content-Length: 0
Oct 29 03:32:46 west /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[632]: INFO:<core>
[forward.c:774]: broken reply to forward - no 2nd via
Shouldn't replies to NAT ping messages be silently dropped like in 1.4?
Yes. But probably kamailio fails to detect that it is a response to a
keep-alive request. Maybe the client is buggy and the message is
malformed. Trace the requests (wireshark or ngrep, tcpdump) and compare
response and request - maybe there is a malformed header in the response.
regards
klaus
30 Oct
30 Oct
2:11 a.m.
No, seems like kamailio complaints "broken reply to forward" about all sip
ping replies...
On Friday 29 October 2010, Klaus Darilion wrote:
On 10/29/2010 11:55 AM, Sergey Okhapkin wrote:
Kamailio 3.1 log is filled with lines like
Oct 29 03:32:46 west /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[632]: INFO:<script>:
incoming reply from udp:188.62.4.186:65333 SIP/2.0 404 Not Found Via:
SIP/2.0/UDP 204.74.213.5:5060;branch=0
From:<sip:pinger@sip.callwithus.com>;tag=3993f0c
To:<sip:188.62.4.186:65333> Call-ID:
aff32da5-89ef0136-71dc8c5(a)204.74.213.5 CSeq: 1 OPTIONS Content-Length: 0
Oct 29 03:32:46 west /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[632]: INFO:<core>
[forward.c:774]: broken reply to forward - no 2nd via
Shouldn't replies to NAT ping messages be silently dropped like in 1.4?
Yes. But probably kamailio fails to detect that it is a response to a
keep-alive request. Maybe the client is buggy and the message is
malformed. Trace the requests (wireshark or ngrep, tcpdump) and compare
response and request - maybe there is a malformed header in the response.
regards
klaus
_______________________________________________
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
5138
days inactive
5138
days old
2 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Klaus Darilion -
Sergey Okhapkin