Hi guys,
i have yet to finish my readings on the websocket standards but just wanted to fire away with this question.
is the behavior of protocol conversions between UDP and TCP the same as if you include websockets?
i have this twinkle issue (an old SIP stack)
Received from: udp:192.168.122.100:5060 INVITE sip:kelvin@192.168.122.1 SIP/2.0 Record-Route: sip:192.168.122.100;r2=on;lr=on Record-Route: sip:192.168.122.100:8080;transport=ws;r2=on;lr=on Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.122.100;branch=z9hG4bKed9e.8b1b2fa61a90a9031e17b393657df31b.0 Via: SIP/2.0/WS z173czhz21tk.invalid;rport=54765;received=192.168.122.1;branch=z9hG4bK3818745 Max-Forwards: 16 To: sip:kelvin@192.168.122.100 From: sip:kelvin2@192.168.122.100;tag=lmf8ofkxwq Call-ID: 69hbgnng64at9p07r2j4 CSeq: 9406 INVITE Contact: sip:kelvin2@z173czhz21tk.invalid ;alias=192.168.122.1~54765~5;transport=ws;ob Allow: INVITE, ACK, CANCEL, BYE, OPTIONS, MESSAGE, SUBSCRIBE Content-Type: application/sdp Supported: path, outbound, gruu User-Agent: JsSIP 0.2.1 Content-Length: 2103
v=0 o=- 3148117784 2 IN IP4 127.0.0.1 s=- t=0 0 a=group:BUNDLE audio m=audio 55736 RTP/SAVPF 103 104 111 0 8 106 105 13 126 c=IN IP4 192.168.122.1 a=rtcp:55736 IN IP4 192.168.122.1 a=candidate:2625852906 1 udp 2113937151
<cut off>
---
+++ 16-3-2013 10:41:25.584732 INFO SIP ::send_sip_udp Send to: udp:192.168.122.100:5060 SIP/2.0 100 Trying Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.122.100;branch=z9hG4bKed9e.8b1b2fa61a90a9031e17b393657df31b.0,SIP/2.0/WS z173czhz21tk.invalid;received=192.168.122.1;rport=54765;branch=z9hG4bK3818745 To: sip:kelvin@192.168.122.100 From: sip:kelvin2@192.168.122.100;tag=lmf8ofkxwq Call-ID: 69hbgnng64at9p07r2j4 CSeq: 9406 INVITE Server: Twinkle/1.4.2 Content-Length: 0
---
+++ 16-3-2013 10:41:25.589231 INFO SIP ::send_sip_udp Send to: udp:192.168.122.100:5060 SIP/2.0 488 Not Acceptable Here Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.122.100;branch=z9hG4bKed9e.8b1b2fa61a90a9031e17b393657df31b.0,SIP/2.0/WS z173czhz21tk.invalid;received=192.168.122.1;rport=54765;branch=z9hG4bK3818745 To: sip:kelvin@192.168.122.100;tag=pxtmo From: sip:kelvin2@192.168.122.100;tag=lmf8ofkxwq Call-ID: 69hbgnng64at9p07r2j4 CSeq: 9406 INVITE Server: Twinkle/1.4.2 Warning: 302 X340precise "Incompatible transport protocol" Content-Length: 0
Kelvin Chua
Hello,
yes, conversion in kamailio is the same. The problem seems in twinkle, returning a negative reply when discovering a transport layer not supported by itself. However, the next hop to it is using UDP, so it should not be worried about what other hops are using between them.
Cheers, Daniel
On 3/16/13 3:51 AM, Kelvin Chua wrote:
Hi guys,
i have yet to finish my readings on the websocket standards but just wanted to fire away with this question.
is the behavior of protocol conversions between UDP and TCP the same as if you include websockets?
i have this twinkle issue (an old SIP stack)
Received from: udp:192.168.122.100:5060 http://192.168.122.100:5060 INVITE sip:kelvin@192.168.122.1 mailto:sip%3Akelvin@192.168.122.1 SIP/2.0 Record-Route: sip:192.168.122.100;r2=on;lr=on Record-Route: sip:192.168.122.100:8080;transport=ws;r2=on;lr=on Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.122.100;branch=z9hG4bKed9e.8b1b2fa61a90a9031e17b393657df31b.0 Via: SIP/2.0/WS z173czhz21tk.invalid;rport=54765;received=192.168.122.1;branch=z9hG4bK3818745 Max-Forwards: 16 To: sip:kelvin@192.168.122.100 mailto:sip%3Akelvin@192.168.122.100 From: sip:kelvin2@192.168.122.100 mailto:sip%3Akelvin2@192.168.122.100;tag=lmf8ofkxwq Call-ID: 69hbgnng64at9p07r2j4 CSeq: 9406 INVITE Contact: sip:kelvin2@z173czhz21tk.invalid;alias=192.168.122.1~54765~5;transport=ws;ob Allow: INVITE, ACK, CANCEL, BYE, OPTIONS, MESSAGE, SUBSCRIBE Content-Type: application/sdp Supported: path, outbound, gruu User-Agent: JsSIP 0.2.1 Content-Length: 2103
v=0 o=- 3148117784 2 IN IP4 127.0.0.1 s=- t=0 0 a=group:BUNDLE audio m=audio 55736 RTP/SAVPF 103 104 111 0 8 106 105 13 126 c=IN IP4 192.168.122.1 a=rtcp:55736 IN IP4 192.168.122.1 a=candidate:2625852906 1 udp 2113937151
<cut off>
+++ 16-3-2013 10:41:25.584732 INFO SIP ::send_sip_udp Send to: udp:192.168.122.100:5060 http://192.168.122.100:5060 SIP/2.0 100 Trying Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.122.100;branch=z9hG4bKed9e.8b1b2fa61a90a9031e17b393657df31b.0,SIP/2.0/WS z173czhz21tk.invalid;received=192.168.122.1;rport=54765;branch=z9hG4bK3818745 To: <sip:kelvin@192.168.122.100 mailto:sip%3Akelvin@192.168.122.100> From: <sip:kelvin2@192.168.122.100 mailto:sip%3Akelvin2@192.168.122.100>;tag=lmf8ofkxwq Call-ID: 69hbgnng64at9p07r2j4 CSeq: 9406 INVITE Server: Twinkle/1.4.2 Content-Length: 0
+++ 16-3-2013 10:41:25.589231 INFO SIP ::send_sip_udp Send to: udp:192.168.122.100:5060 http://192.168.122.100:5060 SIP/2.0 488 Not Acceptable Here Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.122.100;branch=z9hG4bKed9e.8b1b2fa61a90a9031e17b393657df31b.0,SIP/2.0/WS z173czhz21tk.invalid;received=192.168.122.1;rport=54765;branch=z9hG4bK3818745 To: <sip:kelvin@192.168.122.100 mailto:sip%3Akelvin@192.168.122.100>;tag=pxtmo From: <sip:kelvin2@192.168.122.100 mailto:sip%3Akelvin2@192.168.122.100>;tag=lmf8ofkxwq Call-ID: 69hbgnng64at9p07r2j4 CSeq: 9406 INVITE Server: Twinkle/1.4.2 Warning: 302 X340precise "Incompatible transport protocol" Content-Length: 0
Kelvin Chua
SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list sr-users@lists.sip-router.org http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
-
Daniel-Constantin Mierla -
Kelvin Chua