On 24 January 2013 16:05, Peter Dunkley <peter.dunkley(a)crocodile-rcs.com>wrote;wrote:
**
OK. It looks like you have a bug in the client SIP over WebSocket stack.
;transport=wss (as you have on the R-URI) is not correct. It should be
;transport=ws whether it is WS or WSS. The R-URI in the NOTIFY will be the
contact that the client stack put into the SUBSCRIBE - so this wss is
probably coming from the client stack. See
draft-ietf-sipcore-sip-websocket section 5.2.2.
The transport in the SUBSCRIBE was indeed being set as wss, I've modified
it and the problem has disappeared. I'll double check with a tcp dump,
however it looks like it has done the trick.
Maybe Kamailio could report an error in the logs when the unrecognised
transport type is submitted?
The contents of the domain part of the R-URI here is also unusual - the
draft recommends a made-up ".invalid" domain - again see
draft-ietf-sipcore-sip-websocket section A.1.
Also, this NOTIFY R-URI contains no ;alias= parameter - so unless you are
using the latest git master and have enabled outbound you will probably
have some routing problems with this. Basically, you should use the
nathelper module and call add_contact_alias() for all dialog-forming and
re-targetting requests (INVITE, NOTIFY, SUBSCRIBE, and UPDATE) that you
receive from a WebSocket client. Then you should call handle_ruri_alias()
for all requests that destined for a WebSocket client.
Interesting, I had those routing problems initially, so I added the
add_contact_alias() to my script but only if if (nat_uac_test(64)) passes.
I'll take a look at what is happening here.
I am using the latest 4.0.0 sources, so I guess I could also switch to
outbound.
Thanks for your help (and the websockets module), it is much appreciated.
Regards,
Peter
On Thu, 2013-01-24 at 15:46 +0000, Pete Kelly wrote:
This is the ruri:
NOTIFY sips:pete@10.15.20.113:55536;rtcweb-breaker=no;transport=wss
SIP/2.0\r\n
There is only one Via header:
Via: SIP/2.0/TLS 10.15.20.170:443;branch=z9hG4bK8455.12ffc4c6.0\r\n
And the Contact:
Contact: <sip:10.15.20.170:443;transport=ws>\r\n
Contact looks suspicious as ws instead of wss?
Does Kamailio use the usrloc info from the REGISTER to send out a NOTIFY?
On 24 January 2013 15:34, Peter Dunkley <peter.dunkley(a)crocodile-rcs.com>
wrote:
OK. This sounds like the NOTIFY is not being routed through the
WebSocket module then. Instead it is coming out as a raw SIP message.
This would explain a lot. This could well be caused by the routing within
Kamailio not being quite right. For example, if the ;transport=ws
parameter is missing from some Route/Record-Route/Contact/Request -URI you
could see something like this.
It could be a code problem or just a problem with the configuration file
that is causing this. I suspect it may also be related to the use of the
nathelper stuff and the contact aliasing that needs to be used with
WebSocket (unless you are using the latest code and have configured
outbound).
Regards,
Peter
On Thu, 2013-01-24 at 15:29 +0000, Pete Kelly wrote:
Hi Peter, thanks for that info.
It looks like all the packets marked Websocket in Wireshark are coming
across OK from Kamailio. The first nibble is always 1000 as expected.
However I notice now that whenever a NOTIFY is sent out from Kamailio the
packet is *not* a Websocket packet, it's identified as HTTP within
Wireshark and does not contain the 4 "header" bytes that Websocket packets
seem to contain.
As a result the first byte for the NOTIFY is the letter 'N' represented as
01001110.
So the browser could be reading the second bit as 1, and interpreting that
as meaning the compressed bit set to 1.
Does that sound plausible?
On 24 January 2013 14:54, Peter Dunkley <peter.dunkley(a)crocodile-rcs.com>
wrote:
The RSV1 bit (which is the compressed bit) should be the second bit from
the left in the WebSocket frame. The first bit is the FIN (should always
be one here), then you have RSV1, RSV2, and RSV3, and the last nibble of
the first byte will be the opcode.
Regards,
Peter
On 24 Jan 2013, at 14:47, Pete Kelly <pkelly(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Chrome 26, 24 and Firefox nightly all exhibit the same behaviour.
I've decrypted the packets in wireshark, could you point me at what I am
looking for to see the compressed bit?
Wireshark reports (on what seems to be the problematic frame) "This frame
ACKs a segment we have not seen"
On 24 January 2013 13:50, Peter Dunkley <peter.dunkley(a)crocodile-rcs.com>
wrote:
Have you checked to see if there are any known bugs in the browser you are
using?
As the WebSocket message compression stuff is still draft the browser
implementation probably won't be complete or fully tested yet.
As I said, the Kamailio WebSocket implementation does not support any
extensions and all the reserved bits are 0'd. So I don't think it is
likely that the compressed bit is set to 1 at all.
The only other thing I can suggest is capturing your TLS traffic with
WireShark and importing the certificates into it so you can decode the
packets. At that point you should be able to look at the binary of the
frame and see if the compressed bit is set or not.
Regards,
Peter
On Thu, 2013-01-24 at 13:45 +0000, Pete Kelly wrote:
Hi Peter
I can confirm it works correctly for WS and not WSS, and it appears to be
only the NOTIFY request in the direction of Kamailio > UAC. INVITE requests
in the direction of Kamailio > UAC are fine.
I've tried it with the tls tls_disable_compression flag set to both 0 and 1
Pete
On 24 January 2013 09:53, Peter Dunkley <peter.dunkley(a)crocodile-rcs.com>
wrote:
Hi,
I've done some checking online and in the code. The compressed bit is
defined in draft-ietf-hybi-permessage-compression and uses the RSV1 bit
from the WebSocket frame header. As per RFC 6455 the Kamailio WebSocket
implementation is careful to leave RSV1, RSV2, and RSV3 with values of 0.
As this part of the code is identical for WS and WSS connections can you
confirm that it works correctly for WS?
Regards,
Peter
On Thu, 2013-01-24 at 09:09 +0000, Peter Dunkley wrote:
I shod also add that the Kamailio WebSocket implementation does not
support any extensions. So unless the deflate frame extension is implicit
for TLS it will not be negotiated. Further, the implementation does not
set any compressed bits and all unused flags etc should be zeroed
automatically - but I will look at the code later.
Peter
On 24 Jan 2013, at 09:05, Peter Dunkley <peter.dunkley(a)crocodile-rcs.com>
wrote:
I am not sure how to investigate this. It sounds like it might be a TLS
related problem (or a WebSocket/TLS interworking problem in Kamailio). I
don't know anything about the Kamailio TLS implementation - I just drop
WebSocket frames into it as required.
I did do (a little) WSS testing and saw no problems myself.
Regards,
Peter
On 23 Jan 2013, at 22:12, Pete Kelly <pkelly(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi, I am having an issue at the moment with SIP NOTIFY messages being
sent from Kamailio (latest git master) over wss transport
I am getting reports from the receiving end saying "Compressed bit must be
0 if no negotiated deflate-frame extension"
The only reference I can find to it is at the following URL... where the
problem was caused by the server miscalculating the size of the msg:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/12308728/compressed-bit-must-be-0-when-s…
Does anyone have any suggestions as to how I could debug this within
Kamailio? It sounds like Kamailio may be sending some incorrect packet
information but I am unsure at this point.
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing
listsr-users@lists.sip-router.orghttp://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
--
Peter Dunkley
Technical Director
Crocodile RCS Ltd
--
Peter Dunkley
Technical Director
Crocodile RCS Ltd
--
Peter Dunkley
Technical Director
Crocodile RCS Ltd
--
Peter Dunkley
Technical Director
Crocodile RCS Ltd