17 Nov
2008
17 Nov
'08
4:56 p.m.
Hi,
I made a simple SIP test call. The end point reply to kamailio with 180, 200 messages. The
end point includes "tag=1_1555_t58918_125k" in TO field of these messages.
However, kamailio reply with ACK message that includes a random tag (tag=5f08ae5f) in TO
field. This tag is not the same as the one sent by the end point:
1.1.1.1 end-point ip address
2.2.2.2 kamailio ip address
INVITE
From: <sip:1.1.1.1@2.2.2.2>;tag=snl-1226930829-1404351227071264-11
To: <sip:14078789913@x.x.x.x;user=phone>
Call-ID: 9280396221-9479318750707221-11-7604239022
180
From: <sip:1.1.1.1@2.2.2.2>;tag=snl-1226930829-1404351227071264-11
To: <sip:14078789913@x.x.x.x;user=phone>;tag=1_1555_t58918_125k
Call-ID: 9280396221-9479318750707221-11-7604239022
200
From: <sip:1.1.1.1@2.2.2.2>;tag=snl-1226930829-1404351227071264-11
To: <sip:14078789913@x.x.x.x;user=phone>;tag=1_1555_t58918_125k
Call-ID: 9280396221-9479318750707221-11-7604239022
ACK
From: <sip:1.1.1.1@2.2.2.2>;tag=snl-1226930829-1404351227071264-11
To: <sip:14078789913@2.2.2.2;user=phone>;tag=5f08ae5f
Call-ID: 9280396221-9479318750707221-11-7604239022
How can I force it to send the correct tag?
Thanks,
AR
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live Hotmail now works up to 70% faster.
http://windowslive.com/Explore/Hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_faster…
17 Nov
17 Nov
5:10 p.m.
Alex,
Are you sure this is not a bug with the other endpoint (the other side
of the call)? The end-to-end ACK for the 200 OK would have to originate
from it and Kamailio would merely be relaying it. Is it possible that
it is in fact that UA which is ignoring the To tag in the 200 OK from
1.1.1.1?
-- Alex
Alex R.S.M wrote:
Hi,
I made a simple SIP test call. The end point reply to kamailio with 180,
200 messages. The end point includes "tag=1_1555_t58918_125k" in TO
field of these messages. However, kamailio reply with ACK message that
includes a random tag (tag=5f08ae5f) in TO field. This tag is not the
same as the one sent by the end point:
1.1.1.1 end-point ip address
2.2.2.2 kamailio ip address
INVITE
From: <sip:1.1.1.1@2.2.2.2>;tag=snl-1226930829-1404351227071264-11
To: <sip:14078789913@x.x.x.x;user=phone>
Call-ID: 9280396221-9479318750707221-11-7604239022
180
From: <sip:1.1.1.1@2.2.2.2>;tag=snl-1226930829-1404351227071264-11
To: <sip:14078789913@x.x.x.x;user=phone>;*tag=1_1555_t58918_125k*
Call-ID: 9280396221-9479318750707221-11-7604239022
200
From: <sip:1.1.1.1@2.2.2.2>;tag=snl-1226930829-1404351227071264-11
To: <sip:14078789913@x.x.x.x;user=phone>;*tag=1_1555_t58918_125k*
Call-ID: 9280396221-9479318750707221-11-7604239022
ACK
From: <sip:1.1.1.1@2.2.2.2>;tag=snl-1226930829-1404351227071264-11
To: <sip:14078789913@2.2.2.2;user=phone>;*tag=5f08ae5f*
Call-ID: 9280396221-9479318750707221-11-7604239022
How can I force it to send the correct tag?
--
Alex Balashov
Evariste Systems
Web : http://www.evaristesys.com/
Tel : (+1) (678) 954-0670
Direct : (+1) (678) 954-0671
Mobile : (+1) (706) 338-8599
5:40 p.m.
Alex,
The other end-point is a softswitch. I made a direct test call excluding kamailio.
Everything was fine, calls go thru with correct tag value.
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 10:10:26 -0500
From: abalashov(a)evaristesys.com
To: alex_rsm(a)hotmail.com
CC: users(a)lists.kamailio.org
Subject: Re: [Kamailio-Users] incorrect tag in ACK message
Alex,
Are you sure this is not a bug with the other endpoint (the other side
of the call)? The end-to-end ACK for the 200 OK would have to originate
from it and Kamailio would merely be relaying it. Is it possible that
it is in fact that UA which is ignoring the To tag in the 200 OK from
1.1.1.1?
-- Alex
Alex R.S.M wrote:
_________________________________________________________________
See how Windows® connects the people, information, and fun that are part of your life
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/119463819/direct/01/
Hi,
I made a simple SIP test call. The end point reply to kamailio with 180,
200 messages. The end point includes "tag=1_1555_t58918_125k" in TO
field of these messages. However, kamailio reply with ACK message that
includes a random tag (tag=5f08ae5f) in TO field. This tag is not the
same as the one sent by the end point:
1.1.1.1 end-point ip address
2.2.2.2 kamailio ip address
INVITE
From: <sip:1.1.1.1@2.2.2.2>;tag=snl-1226930829-1404351227071264-11
To: <sip:14078789913@x.x.x.x;user=phone>
Call-ID: 9280396221-9479318750707221-11-7604239022
180
From: <sip:1.1.1.1@2.2.2.2>;tag=snl-1226930829-1404351227071264-11
To: <sip:14078789913@x.x.x.x;user=phone>;*tag=1_1555_t58918_125k*
Call-ID: 9280396221-9479318750707221-11-7604239022
200
From: <sip:1.1.1.1@2.2.2.2>;tag=snl-1226930829-1404351227071264-11
To: <sip:14078789913@x.x.x.x;user=phone>;*tag=1_1555_t58918_125k*
Call-ID: 9280396221-9479318750707221-11-7604239022
ACK
From: <sip:1.1.1.1@2.2.2.2>;tag=snl-1226930829-1404351227071264-11
To: <sip:14078789913@2.2.2.2;user=phone>;*tag=5f08ae5f*
Call-ID: 9280396221-9479318750707221-11-7604239022
How can I force it to send the correct tag?
--
Alex Balashov
Evariste Systems
Web : http://www.evaristesys.com/
Tel : (+1) (678) 954-0670
Direct : (+1) (678) 954-0671
Mobile : (+1) (706) 338-8599
5:43 p.m.
So, what you're saying is that the ACK (response to 200 OK from
endpoint) from the softswitch comes with a To tag of 1_1555_t58918_125k
to Kamailio, but the ACK that Kamailio sends out to the endpoint has an
altered To tag? Have you checked?
Alex R.S.M wrote:
Alex,
The other end-point is a softswitch. I made a direct test call excluding
kamailio. Everything was fine, calls go thru with correct tag value.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
See how Windows® connects the people, information, and fun that are part
of your life Click here <http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/119463819/direct/01/>
--
Alex Balashov
Evariste Systems
Web : http://www.evaristesys.com/
Tel : (+1) (678) 954-0670
Direct : (+1) (678) 954-0671
Mobile : (+1) (706) 338-8599
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 10:10:26 -0500
From: abalashov(a)evaristesys.com
To: alex_rsm(a)hotmail.com
CC: users(a)lists.kamailio.org
Subject: Re: [Kamailio-Users] incorrect tag in ACK message
Alex,
Are you sure this is not a bug with the other endpoint (the other side
of the call)? The end-to-end ACK for the 200 OK would have to originate
from it and Kamailio would merely be relaying it. Is it possible that
it is in fact that UA which is ignoring the To tag in the 200 OK from
1.1.1.1?
-- Alex
Alex R.S.M wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I made a simple SIP test call. The end point reply to kamailio with
180,
200
messages. The end point includes "tag=1_1555_t58918_125k" in TO
field of these messages. However, kamailio reply with ACK message that
includes a random tag (tag=5f08ae5f) in TO field. This tag is not the
same as the one sent by the end point:
1.1.1.1 end-point ip address
2.2.2.2 kamailio ip address
INVITE
From: <sip:1.1.1.1@2.2.2.2>;tag=snl-1226930829-1404351227071264-11
To: <sip:14078789913@x.x.x.x;user=phone>
Call-ID: 9280396221-9479318750707221-11-7604239022
180
From: <sip:1.1.1.1@2.2.2.2>;tag=snl-1226930829-1404351227071264-11
To: <sip:14078789913@x.x.x.x;user=phone>;*tag=1_1555_t58918_125k*
Call-ID: 9280396221-9479318750707221-11-7604239022
200
From: <sip:1.1.1.1@2.2.2.2>;tag=snl-1226930829-1404351227071264-11
To: <sip:14078789913@x.x.x.x;user=phone>;*tag=1_1555_t58918_125k*
Call-ID: 9280396221-9479318750707221-11-7604239022
ACK
From: <sip:1.1.1.1@2.2.2.2>;tag=snl-1226930829-1404351227071264-11
To: <sip:14078789913@2.2.2.2;user=phone>;*tag=5f08ae5f*
Call-ID: 9280396221-9479318750707221-11-7604239022
How can I force it to send the correct tag?
--
Alex Balashov
Evariste Systems
Web : http://www.evaristesys.com/
Tel : (+1) (678) 954-0670
Direct : (+1) (678) 954-0671
Mobile : (+1) (706) 338-8599 
5:46 p.m.
Hi!
In a successful INVITE transaction Kamailio does not produce ACK
messages and thus does not produce to-tags. The 200 Ok is relayd to the
caller. The caller sends ACK which will be forwarded by Kamailio.
I currently see 3 possibilities:
- the caller uses the wrong totag
- the trace is mixed up
- you change the To header manually in the configuration file
regards
klaus
Alex R.S.M schrieb:
Hi,
I made a simple SIP test call. The end point reply to kamailio with 180,
200 messages. The end point includes "tag=1_1555_t58918_125k" in TO
field of these messages. However, kamailio reply with ACK message that
includes a random tag (tag=5f08ae5f) in TO field. This tag is not the
same as the one sent by the end point:
1.1.1.1 end-point ip address
2.2.2.2 kamailio ip address
INVITE
From: <sip:1.1.1.1@2.2.2.2>;tag=snl-1226930829-1404351227071264-11
To: <sip:14078789913@x.x.x.x;user=phone>
Call-ID: 9280396221-9479318750707221-11-7604239022
180
From: <sip:1.1.1.1@2.2.2.2>;tag=snl-1226930829-1404351227071264-11
To: <sip:14078789913@x.x.x.x;user=phone>;*tag=1_1555_t58918_125k*
Call-ID: 9280396221-9479318750707221-11-7604239022
200
From: <sip:1.1.1.1@2.2.2.2>;tag=snl-1226930829-1404351227071264-11
To: <sip:14078789913@x.x.x.x;user=phone>;*tag=1_1555_t58918_125k*
Call-ID: 9280396221-9479318750707221-11-7604239022
ACK
From: <sip:1.1.1.1@2.2.2.2>;tag=snl-1226930829-1404351227071264-11
To: <sip:14078789913@2.2.2.2;user=phone>;*tag=5f08ae5f*
Call-ID: 9280396221-9479318750707221-11-7604239022
How can I force it to send the correct tag?
Thanks,
AR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Windows Live Hotmail now works up to 70% faster. Sign up today.
<http://windowslive.com/Explore/Hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_faster_112008>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
Users(a)lists.kamailio.org
http://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
5:50 p.m.
Klaus Darilion wrote:
In a successful INVITE transaction Kamailio does not
produce ACK
messages and thus does not produce to-tags. The 200 Ok is relayd to the
caller. The caller sends ACK which will be forwarded by Kamailio.
Yep - these are end-to-end ACKs. So I don't see how Kamailio could be
rewriting the To tag.
My vote is with:
- the caller uses the wrong totag
Just because it's a soft-switch (what kind?) doesn't mean it has a SIP
stack any less buggy than a tropical swamp.
--
Alex Balashov
Evariste Systems
Web : http://www.evaristesys.com/
Tel : (+1) (678) 954-0670
Direct : (+1) (678) 954-0671
Mobile : (+1) (706) 338-8599
6:04 p.m.
Klaus,
Thank you for the response.
Found the problem.
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:46:29 +0100
From: klaus.mailinglists(a)pernau.at
To: alex_rsm(a)hotmail.com
CC: users(a)lists.kamailio.org
Subject: Re: [Kamailio-Users] incorrect tag in ACK message
Hi!
In a successful INVITE transaction Kamailio does not produce ACK
messages and thus does not produce to-tags. The 200 Ok is relayd to the
caller. The caller sends ACK which will be forwarded by Kamailio.
I currently see 3 possibilities:
- the caller uses the wrong totag
- the trace is mixed up
- you change the To header manually in the configuration file
regards
klaus
Alex R.S.M schrieb:
> Hi,
>
> I made a simple SIP test call. The end point reply to kamailio with 180,
> 200 messages. The end point includes "tag=1_1555_t58918_125k" in TO
> field of these messages. However, kamailio reply with ACK message that
> includes a random tag (tag=5f08ae5f) in TO field. This tag is not the
> same as the one sent by the end point:
>
> 1.1.1.1 end-point ip address
> 2.2.2.2 kamailio ip address
>
> INVITE
> From: <sip:1.1.1.1@2.2.2.2>;tag=snl-1226930829-1404351227071264-11
> To: <sip:14078789913@x.x.x.x;user=phone>
> Call-ID: 9280396221-9479318750707221-11-7604239022
>
> 180
> From: <sip:1.1.1.1@2.2.2.2>;tag=snl-1226930829-1404351227071264-11
> To: <sip:14078789913@x.x.x.x;user=phone>;*tag=1_1555_t58918_125k*
> Call-ID: 9280396221-9479318750707221-11-7604239022
>
> 200
> From: <sip:1.1.1.1@2.2.2.2>;tag=snl-1226930829-1404351227071264-11
> To: <sip:14078789913@x.x.x.x;user=phone>;*tag=1_1555_t58918_125k*
> Call-ID: 9280396221-9479318750707221-11-7604239022
>
> ACK
> From: <sip:1.1.1.1@2.2.2.2>;tag=snl-1226930829-1404351227071264-11
> To: <sip:14078789913@2.2.2.2;user=phone>;*tag=5f08ae5f*
> Call-ID: 9280396221-9479318750707221-11-7604239022
>
> How can I force it to send the correct tag?
>
> Thanks,
> AR
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Windows Live Hotmail now works up to 70% faster. Sign up today.
>
<http://windowslive.com/Explore/Hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_faster_112008>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Users mailing list
> Users(a)lists.kamailio.org
> http://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live Hotmail now works up to 70% faster.
http://windowslive.com/Explore/Hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_faster…
6:07 p.m.
Alex R.S.M wrote:
Klaus,
Thank you for the response.
Found the problem.
I'd be curious to know what it was.
--
Alex Balashov
Evariste Systems
Web : http://www.evaristesys.com/
Tel : (+1) (678) 954-0670
Direct : (+1) (678) 954-0671
Mobile : (+1) (706) 338-8599
6:12 p.m.
Caller make a single call, kamailio forks the INVITE and relay the call to two end-point.
Both end-points response with 180.
One end-point reponses with 200. Caller send ACK with the incorrect tag value.
I need to drop one of the 180 (the one which didn't answer the call).
I believe I should be able to drop it in onreply_route block. Correct?
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 11:07:54 -0500
From: abalashov(a)evaristesys.com
To: alex_rsm(a)hotmail.com
CC: klaus.mailinglists(a)pernau.at; users(a)lists.kamailio.org
Subject: Re: [Kamailio-Users] incorrect tag in ACK message
Alex R.S.M wrote:
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live Hotmail now works up to 70% faster.
http://windowslive.com/Explore/Hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_faster…
Klaus,
Thank you for the response.
Found the problem.
I'd be curious to know what it was.
--
Alex Balashov
Evariste Systems
Web : http://www.evaristesys.com/
Tel : (+1) (678) 954-0670
Direct : (+1) (678) 954-0671
Mobile : (+1) (706) 338-8599
7:46 p.m.
Yes, but shouldn't it go like this?
1. Caller makes a single call;
2. Kamailio forks INVITE to endpoint A and B;
3. Endpoint A responds with 200;
4. Kamailio CANCELs branch to B and passes back 200 from A to caller;
5. Caller sends ACK with tag in A's 200 reply.
Alex R.S.M wrote:
Caller make a single call, kamailio forks the INVITE
and relay the call
to two end-point. Both end-points response with 180.
One end-point reponses with 200. Caller send ACK with the incorrect tag
value.
I need to drop one of the 180 (the one which didn't answer the call).
I believe I should be able to drop it in onreply_route block. Correct?
--
Alex Balashov
Evariste Systems
Web : http://www.evaristesys.com/
Tel : (+1) (678) 954-0670
Direct : (+1) (678) 954-0671
Mobile : (+1) (706) 338-8599
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 11:07:54 -0500
From: abalashov(a)evaristesys.com
To: alex_rsm(a)hotmail.com
CC: klaus.mailinglists(a)pernau.at; users(a)lists.kamailio.org
Subject: Re: [Kamailio-Users] incorrect tag in ACK message
Alex R.S.M wrote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Windows Live Hotmail now works up to 70% faster. Sign up today.
<http://windowslive.com/Explore/Hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_faster_112008>
Klaus,
Thank you for the response.
Found the problem.
I'd be curious to know what it was.
--
Alex Balashov
Evariste Systems
Web : http://www.evaristesys.com/
Tel : (+1) (678) 954-0670
Direct : (+1) (678) 954-0671
Mobile : (+1) (706) 338-8599
10:31 p.m.
Alex R.S.M schrieb:
Caller make a single call, kamailio forks the INVITE
and relay the call
to two end-point. Both end-points response with 180.
One end-point reponses with 200. Caller send ACK with the incorrect tag
value.
I need to drop one of the 180 (the one which didn't answer the call).
I believe I should be able to drop it in onreply_route block. Correct?
You can not drop the proper 180 as you do not know yet which branch will
send the 200 OK.
A dirty hack (but very well working) is to use a regular expression in
reply route and remove the to-tag from all 1xx responses - so the
softswitch can learn the tag only with the 200 ok.
klaus
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 11:07:54 -0500
From: abalashov(a)evaristesys.com
To: alex_rsm(a)hotmail.com
CC: klaus.mailinglists(a)pernau.at; users(a)lists.kamailio.org
Subject: Re: [Kamailio-Users] incorrect tag in ACK message
Alex R.S.M wrote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Windows Live Hotmail now works up to 70% faster. Sign up today.
<http://windowslive.com/Explore/Hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_faster_112008>
Klaus,
Thank you for the response.
Found the problem.
I'd be curious to know what it was.
--
Alex Balashov
Evariste Systems
Web : http://www.evaristesys.com/
Tel : (+1) (678) 954-0670
Direct : (+1) (678) 954-0671
Mobile : (+1) (706) 338-8599
18 Nov
18 Nov
2:01 a.m.
Klaus Darilion wrote:
A dirty hack (but very well working) is to use a
regular expression in
reply route and remove the to-tag from all 1xx responses - so the
softswitch can learn the tag only with the 200 ok.
Won't that cause the provisional response to not be matched to the right
transaction?
--
Alex Balashov
Evariste Systems
Web : http://www.evaristesys.com/
Tel : (+1) (678) 954-0670
Direct : (+1) (678) 954-0671
Mobile : (+1) (706) 338-8599
10:44 a.m.
Alex Balashov schrieb:
Klaus Darilion wrote:
No. This is fine. A response need not to have the totag (for
compatibility with the old SIP RFC) and actually transaction matching is
based on branch id in Via header, dialog matching is based on
callid+fromatg+totag
klaus
A dirty hack (but very well working) is to use a
regular expression in
reply route and remove the to-tag from all 1xx responses - so the
softswitch can learn the tag only with the 200 ok.
Won't that cause the provisional response to not be matched to the right
transaction?
1:07 p.m.
Klaus Darilion wrote:
actually transaction matching is based on branch id in
Via header
Entirely? Interesting. Didn't know that.
--
Alex Balashov
Evariste Systems
Web : http://www.evaristesys.com/
Tel : (+1) (678) 954-0670
Direct : (+1) (678) 954-0671
Mobile : (+1) (706) 338-8599
11:39 p.m.
Alex Balashov wrote:
Klaus Darilion wrote:
I do not know either. RFC 3261 is your friend :-)
The branch parameter in the topmost Via header field of the request
is examined. If it is present and begins with the magic cookie
"z9hG4bK", the request was generated by a client transaction
compliant to this specification. Therefore, the branch parameter
will be unique across all transactions sent by that client. The
request matches a transaction if:
1. the branch parameter in the request is equal to the one in the
top Via header field of the request that created the
transaction, and
2. the sent-by value in the top Via of the request is equal to the
one in the request that created the transaction, and
3. the method of the request matches the one that created the
transaction, except for ACK, where the method of the request
that created the transaction is INVITE.
So actually the Via header and CSEq header
regards
klaus
actually transaction matching is based on branch
id in Via header
Entirely?
5854
days inactive
5855
days old
14 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Alex Balashov -
Alex R.S.M -
Klaus Darilion