Hi everybody,
Short question: Are there any best practices regarding the routing of ACK Messages? Currently we have the following logic implemented:
route { [...]
################################################################################################################## # Check for Re-Transmissions (not ACK/CANCEL)
############################################################################################################### if ((method != "CANCEL") && (method != "ACK")) { if (t_check_trans()) { log(1, "Re-Transmission detected, message dropped.\n"); # Drop the message silently. return; } }
################################################################################################################## # Loose-Routing (RFC3261)
############################################################################################################### if (loose_route()) { route(10); return; }; # if (loose_route()) {
################################################################################################################## # ACK/CANCEL Messages may be relayed
############################################################################################################### if ((method == "CANCEL") || (method == "ACK")) { if (uri != myself) { # Und das Paket entsprechend weiterleiten if (!t_relay("udp:outbound_proxy:outbound_proxy_port")) { log(1, "Not possible to relay\n"); # Fehler melden sl_reply_error(); return; } return; } } [...]
################################################################################################################## # Rest of "normal" Routing logic with number manipulation / Routing to different Gateways / User Authorization/Authentication
############################################################################################################### }
Is there any other method, to improve the routing of ACK/CANCEL Messages? I would like to avoid all the number manipulation, checking and choosing of a proper gateway.... I thought, this must (somehow) be possible since from a technical perspective the ACK and CANCEL Message can be associated with a corresponding INVITE Message (and the corresponding Transaction). I've looked in the manual of the TM-Module and found the following example: if ( is_method("CANCEL") ) { if ( t_check_trans() ) t_relay(); exit; } (http://openser.org/docs/modules/1.1.x/tm.html#AEN460)
I guess, this example does not mean, that the URI gets rewritten properly and the CANCEL-/ACK-Message would get properly relayed to the destination, where it is supposed to end. Is there any way to do it best? I've seen, that some clients do proper loose-routing for ACK-Messages, but not all clients, so this is not a solution. Are there any other suggestions?
Thanks in advance,
Carsten
____________ Virus checked by G DATA AntiVirusKit
Hi Carsten!
First I would differ between ACK and CANCEL.
If you use statefull forwarding, then it is sufficient to just t_relay, as tm will take care of hop-by-hop canceling. There is no need to rewrite the R-URI. There is only one problem: If the INVITE processing takes more time, than it may happen that the CANCEL hits the tm module before the tm module created a transaction. Thus, I discard CANCEL without existing transactions.
ACK: There are 3 kinds of possible ACK. 1. stateless, e.g. if you use sl_send_reply("404",""), then the client will send a "stateless" ACK. This ACK will be absorbed by openser as soon as it is received and will never enter the routing logic. Thus, we do not have to care about them.
2. statefull, sucessful call: The INVITE was answered with 200, thus the caller sends an ACK to the callee. This ACK is in-dialog, and thus should be routed by the loose_route block (no need to rewrite any URI)
3. statefull, unsuccessful call: The call was rejected or cancelled. Thus, we have hop-by-hop ACKs. Thus, the ACK must be handled to the tm moudle, which takes care of it (no need to rewrite any URI).
here is how I handle ACK and CANCEL. I did not had any issues with this (running now since 1 year).
if ( is_method("CANCEL") && !t_check_trans() ) { # CANCEL without matching INVITE transaction, ignore # may happen if the INVITE is slower than the CANCEL # ignore the CANCEL, as the client will retransmit it, and maybe next time # the INVITE transaction is already created xlog("L_WARN","$ci CANCEL without matching transaction ... ignore and discard.\n"); exit; } route(8); # disable mediaproxy (needs to see valid CANCEL requests) force_send_socket(83.136.32.160:5060); # force port 5060 as sending port if ( is_method("CANCEL") ) { # CANCEL with matching INVITE transaction, just # t_relay xlog("L_INFO","$ci CANCEL with matching transaction ... t_relay.\n"); t_relay(); exit; } # check every message for Remote-Party-Id: header and remove it if (is_present_hf("Remote-Party-ID")) { xlog("L_INFO", "$ci Remote-Party-ID header present ...removing\n"); remove_hf("Remote-Party-ID"); } if (loose_route()) { # loose route requests are not authenticated xlog("L_INFO","$ci beginning loose_route processing...\n"); route(32); # handle in-dialog requests exit; } if ( is_method("ACK") ) { if ( t_check_trans() ) { # non loose-route, but stateful ACK; must be an ACK after a 487 xlog("L_INFO","$ci local end-to-end ACK for an existent INVITE transaction detected ...t_relay()\n"); t_relay(); } else { xlog("L_WARN","$ci ACK without matching transaction ... ignore and discard.\n"); } exit; } if ( has_totag() ) { # in-dialog requests should be handled by loose_route # this should be fixed in the client or in openser xlog("L_ERR","$ci in-dialog request was not catched by loose_route block, 403... \n"); xlog("L_ERR","$ci this is the complete message:\n"); xlog("L_ERR","$ci $mb\n"); sl_send_reply("403","in-dialog request without loose_route is not allowed, this is a bug in the client or in this proxy\n"); exit; } route(7); # proxy authentication
regards Klaus
Carsten Bock wrote:
Hi everybody,
Short question: Are there any best practices regarding the routing of ACK Messages? Currently we have the following logic implemented:
route { [...]
##################################################################################################################
# Check for Re-Transmissions (not ACK/CANCEL)
###############################################################################################################
if ((method != "CANCEL") && (method != "ACK")) { if (t_check_trans()) { log(1, "Re-Transmission detected, message dropped.\n"); # Drop the message silently. return; } }
##################################################################################################################
# Loose-Routing (RFC3261)
###############################################################################################################
if (loose_route()) { route(10); return; }; # if (loose_route()) { ##################################################################################################################
# ACK/CANCEL Messages may be relayed
###############################################################################################################
if ((method == "CANCEL") || (method == "ACK")) { if (uri != myself) { # Und das Paket entsprechend weiterleiten if (!t_relay("udp:outbound_proxy:outbound_proxy_port")) { log(1, "Not possible to relay\n"); # Fehler melden sl_reply_error(); return; } return; } } [...]
##################################################################################################################
# Rest of "normal" Routing logic with number manipulation / Routing to different Gateways / User Authorization/Authentication
###############################################################################################################
}
Is there any other method, to improve the routing of ACK/CANCEL Messages? I would like to avoid all the number manipulation, checking and choosing of a proper gateway.... I thought, this must (somehow) be possible since from a technical perspective the ACK and CANCEL Message can be associated with a corresponding INVITE Message (and the corresponding Transaction). I've looked in the manual of the TM-Module and found the following example: if ( is_method("CANCEL") ) { if ( t_check_trans() ) t_relay(); exit; } (http://openser.org/docs/modules/1.1.x/tm.html#AEN460)
I guess, this example does not mean, that the URI gets rewritten properly and the CANCEL-/ACK-Message would get properly relayed to the destination, where it is supposed to end. Is there any way to do it best? I've seen, that some clients do proper loose-routing for ACK-Messages, but not all clients, so this is not a solution. Are there any other suggestions?
Thanks in advance,
Carsten
Virus checked by G DATA AntiVirusKit
Users mailing list Users@openser.org http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
Hi Klaus,
Thanks! It really works great!
Carsten
Klaus Darilion schrieb:
Hi Carsten!
First I would differ between ACK and CANCEL.
If you use statefull forwarding, then it is sufficient to just t_relay, as tm will take care of hop-by-hop canceling. There is no need to rewrite the R-URI. There is only one problem: If the INVITE processing takes more time, than it may happen that the CANCEL hits the tm module before the tm module created a transaction. Thus, I discard CANCEL without existing transactions.
ACK: There are 3 kinds of possible ACK.
- stateless, e.g. if you use sl_send_reply("404",""), then the client
will send a "stateless" ACK. This ACK will be absorbed by openser as soon as it is received and will never enter the routing logic. Thus, we do not have to care about them.
- statefull, sucessful call: The INVITE was answered with 200, thus
the caller sends an ACK to the callee. This ACK is in-dialog, and thus should be routed by the loose_route block (no need to rewrite any URI)
- statefull, unsuccessful call: The call was rejected or cancelled.
Thus, we have hop-by-hop ACKs. Thus, the ACK must be handled to the tm moudle, which takes care of it (no need to rewrite any URI).
Hi Klaus,
For me the same problem , But problem in Bye message , openser system didn't recieve the Bye request from the UAC's.....
When its connected Behind the NAT with Different networks... IN local network its really fine...
that means Not working in outside the world..
On 8/2/06, Klaus Darilion klaus.mailinglists@pernau.at wrote:
Hi Carsten!
First I would differ between ACK and CANCEL.
If you use statefull forwarding, then it is sufficient to just t_relay, as tm will take care of hop-by-hop canceling. There is no need to rewrite the R-URI. There is only one problem: If the INVITE processing takes more time, than it may happen that the CANCEL hits the tm module before the tm module created a transaction. Thus, I discard CANCEL without existing transactions.
ACK: There are 3 kinds of possible ACK.
- stateless, e.g. if you use sl_send_reply("404",""), then the client
will send a "stateless" ACK. This ACK will be absorbed by openser as soon as it is received and will never enter the routing logic. Thus, we do not have to care about them.
- statefull, sucessful call: The INVITE was answered with 200, thus the
caller sends an ACK to the callee. This ACK is in-dialog, and thus should be routed by the loose_route block (no need to rewrite any URI)
- statefull, unsuccessful call: The call was rejected or cancelled.
Thus, we have hop-by-hop ACKs. Thus, the ACK must be handled to the tm moudle, which takes care of it (no need to rewrite any URI).
here is how I handle ACK and CANCEL. I did not had any issues with this (running now since 1 year).
if ( is_method("CANCEL") && !t_check_trans() ) { # CANCEL without matching INVITE transaction, ignore # may happen if the INVITE is slower than the CANCEL # ignore the CANCEL, as the client will retransmit it, and maybe next time # the INVITE transaction is already created xlog("L_WARN","$ci CANCEL without matching transaction ... ignore and discard.\n"); exit; } route(8); # disable mediaproxy (needs to see valid CANCEL requests) force_send_socket(83.136.32.160:5060); # force port 5060 as sending port if ( is_method("CANCEL") ) { # CANCEL with matching INVITE transaction, just # t_relay xlog("L_INFO","$ci CANCEL with matching transaction ... t_relay.\n"); t_relay(); exit; } # check every message for Remote-Party-Id: header and remove it if (is_present_hf("Remote-Party-ID")) { xlog("L_INFO", "$ci Remote-Party-ID header present ...removing\n"); remove_hf("Remote-Party-ID"); } if (loose_route()) { # loose route requests are not authenticated xlog("L_INFO","$ci beginning loose_route processing...\n"); route(32); # handle in-dialog requests exit; } if ( is_method("ACK") ) { if ( t_check_trans() ) { # non loose-route, but stateful ACK; must be an ACK after a 487 xlog("L_INFO","$ci local end-to-end ACK for an existent INVITE transaction detected ...t_relay()\n"); t_relay(); } else { xlog("L_WARN","$ci ACK without matching transaction ... ignore and discard.\n"); } exit; } if ( has_totag() ) { # in-dialog requests should be handled by loose_route # this should be fixed in the client or in openser xlog("L_ERR","$ci in-dialog request was not catched by loose_route block, 403... \n"); xlog("L_ERR","$ci this is the complete message:\n"); xlog("L_ERR","$ci $mb\n"); sl_send_reply("403","in-dialog request without loose_route is not allowed, this is a bug in the client or in this proxy\n"); exit; } route(7); # proxy authentication
regards Klaus
Carsten Bock wrote:
Hi everybody,
Short question: Are there any best practices regarding the routing of ACK Messages? Currently we have the following logic implemented:
route { [...]
##################################################################################################################
# Check for Re-Transmissions (not ACK/CANCEL)
###############################################################################################################
if ((method != "CANCEL") && (method != "ACK")) { if (t_check_trans()) { log(1, "Re-Transmission detected, message dropped.\n"); # Drop the message silently. return; } }
##################################################################################################################
# Loose-Routing (RFC3261)
###############################################################################################################
if (loose_route()) { route(10); return; }; # if (loose_route()) {
##################################################################################################################
# ACK/CANCEL Messages may be relayed
###############################################################################################################
if ((method == "CANCEL") || (method == "ACK")) { if (uri != myself) { # Und das Paket entsprechend weiterleiten if (!t_relay("udp:outbound_proxy:outbound_proxy_port")) { log(1, "Not possible to relay\n"); # Fehler melden sl_reply_error(); return; } return; } } [...]
##################################################################################################################
# Rest of "normal" Routing logic with number manipulation / Routing to different Gateways / User Authorization/Authentication
###############################################################################################################
}
Is there any other method, to improve the routing of ACK/CANCEL Messages? I would like to avoid all the number manipulation, checking and choosing of a proper gateway.... I thought, this must (somehow) be possible since from a technical perspective the ACK and CANCEL Message can be associated with a corresponding INVITE Message (and the corresponding Transaction). I've looked in the manual of the TM-Module and found the following
example:
if ( is_method("CANCEL") ) { if ( t_check_trans() ) t_relay(); exit; } (http://openser.org/docs/modules/1.1.x/tm.html#AEN460)
I guess, this example does not mean, that the URI gets rewritten properly and the CANCEL-/ACK-Message would get properly relayed to the destination, where it is supposed to end. Is there any way to do it best? I've seen, that some clients do proper loose-routing for ACK-Messages, but not all clients, so this is not a solution. Are there any other suggestions?
Thanks in advance,
Carsten
Virus checked by G DATA AntiVirusKit
Users mailing list Users@openser.org http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
Users mailing list Users@openser.org http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
On Fri, August 4, 2006 8:10, raviprakash sunkara said:
Hi Klaus,
For me the same problem , But problem in Bye message , openser system didn't recieve the Bye request from the UAC's.....
1. This is not the same problem
2. You have a NAT problem
3. The client will send the BYE to the iP address in the Record-Route header (if you use record_route()). Thus, make sure to announce the public IP address and setup a port forwarding from this public IP to the SIP proxy.
regards klaus
When its connected Behind the NAT with Different networks... IN local network its really fine...
that means Not working in outside the world..
On 8/2/06, Klaus Darilion klaus.mailinglists@pernau.at wrote:
Hi Carsten!
First I would differ between ACK and CANCEL.
If you use statefull forwarding, then it is sufficient to just t_relay, as tm will take care of hop-by-hop canceling. There is no need to rewrite the R-URI. There is only one problem: If the INVITE processing takes more time, than it may happen that the CANCEL hits the tm module before the tm module created a transaction. Thus, I discard CANCEL without existing transactions.
ACK: There are 3 kinds of possible ACK.
- stateless, e.g. if you use sl_send_reply("404",""), then the client
will send a "stateless" ACK. This ACK will be absorbed by openser as soon as it is received and will never enter the routing logic. Thus, we do not have to care about them.
- statefull, sucessful call: The INVITE was answered with 200, thus the
caller sends an ACK to the callee. This ACK is in-dialog, and thus should be routed by the loose_route block (no need to rewrite any URI)
- statefull, unsuccessful call: The call was rejected or cancelled.
Thus, we have hop-by-hop ACKs. Thus, the ACK must be handled to the tm moudle, which takes care of it (no need to rewrite any URI).
here is how I handle ACK and CANCEL. I did not had any issues with this (running now since 1 year).
if ( is_method("CANCEL") && !t_check_trans() ) { # CANCEL without matching INVITE transaction, ignore # may happen if the INVITE is slower than the CANCEL # ignore the CANCEL, as the client will retransmit it, and maybe next time # the INVITE transaction is already created xlog("L_WARN","$ci CANCEL without matching transaction ... ignore and discard.\n"); exit; } route(8); # disable mediaproxy (needs to see valid CANCEL requests) force_send_socket(83.136.32.160:5060); # force port 5060 as sending port if ( is_method("CANCEL") ) { # CANCEL with matching INVITE transaction, just # t_relay xlog("L_INFO","$ci CANCEL with matching transaction ... t_relay.\n"); t_relay(); exit; } # check every message for Remote-Party-Id: header and remove it if (is_present_hf("Remote-Party-ID")) { xlog("L_INFO", "$ci Remote-Party-ID header present ...removing\n"); remove_hf("Remote-Party-ID"); } if (loose_route()) { # loose route requests are not authenticated xlog("L_INFO","$ci beginning loose_route processing...\n"); route(32); # handle in-dialog requests exit; } if ( is_method("ACK") ) { if ( t_check_trans() ) { # non loose-route, but stateful ACK; must be an ACK after a 487 xlog("L_INFO","$ci local end-to-end ACK for an existent INVITE transaction detected ...t_relay()\n"); t_relay(); } else { xlog("L_WARN","$ci ACK without matching transaction ... ignore and discard.\n"); } exit; } if ( has_totag() ) { # in-dialog requests should be handled by loose_route # this should be fixed in the client or in openser xlog("L_ERR","$ci in-dialog request was not catched by loose_route block, 403... \n"); xlog("L_ERR","$ci this is the complete message:\n"); xlog("L_ERR","$ci $mb\n"); sl_send_reply("403","in-dialog request without loose_route is not allowed, this is a bug in the client or in this proxy\n"); exit; } route(7); # proxy authentication
regards Klaus
Carsten Bock wrote:
Hi everybody,
Short question: Are there any best practices regarding the routing of ACK Messages? Currently we have the following logic implemented:
route { [...]
##################################################################################################################
# Check for Re-Transmissions (not ACK/CANCEL)
###############################################################################################################
if ((method != "CANCEL") && (method != "ACK")) { if (t_check_trans()) { log(1, "Re-Transmission detected, message dropped.\n"); # Drop the message silently. return; } }
##################################################################################################################
# Loose-Routing (RFC3261)
###############################################################################################################
if (loose_route()) { route(10); return; }; # if (loose_route()) {
##################################################################################################################
# ACK/CANCEL Messages may be relayed
###############################################################################################################
if ((method == "CANCEL") || (method == "ACK")) { if (uri != myself) { # Und das Paket entsprechend weiterleiten if (!t_relay("udp:outbound_proxy:outbound_proxy_port")) { log(1, "Not possible to relay\n"); # Fehler melden sl_reply_error(); return; } return; } } [...]
##################################################################################################################
# Rest of "normal" Routing logic with number manipulation / Routing to different Gateways / User Authorization/Authentication
###############################################################################################################
}
Is there any other method, to improve the routing of ACK/CANCEL Messages? I would like to avoid all the number manipulation, checking and choosing of a proper gateway.... I thought, this must (somehow) be possible since from a technical perspective the ACK and CANCEL Message can be associated with a corresponding INVITE Message (and the corresponding Transaction). I've looked in the manual of the TM-Module and found the following
example:
if ( is_method("CANCEL") ) { if ( t_check_trans() ) t_relay(); exit; } (http://openser.org/docs/modules/1.1.x/tm.html#AEN460)
I guess, this example does not mean, that the URI gets rewritten properly and the CANCEL-/ACK-Message would get properly relayed to the destination, where it is supposed to end. Is there any way to do it best? I've seen, that some clients do proper loose-routing for ACK-Messages, but not all clients, so this is not a solution. Are there any other suggestions?
Thanks in advance,
Carsten
Virus checked by G DATA AntiVirusKit
Users mailing list Users@openser.org http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
Users mailing list Users@openser.org http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
-- Thanks and Regards with cheers Sunkara Ravi Prakash (Voip Developer) Hyperion Technology Kondapur, Hi-tech city, Hyderabad. www.hyperion-tech.com +91-9985077535
Hi Klaus,
On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 08:24:10AM +0200, Klaus Darilion wrote:
On Fri, August 4, 2006 8:10, raviprakash sunkara said:
Hi Klaus,
For me the same problem , But problem in Bye message , openser system didn't recieve the Bye request from the UAC's.....
This is not the same problem
You have a NAT problem
The client will send the BYE to the iP address in the Record-Route
header (if you use record_route()). Thus, make sure to announce the public IP address and setup a port forwarding from this public IP to the SIP proxy.
I have mostly the same problem. When the softphone behind my NATing proxy hangs up, the BYE message goes through the proxy. However, when the outside phone hangs up, my proxy never sees the BYE message, as though it was never issued.
My configuration file calls record_route() only for the INVITE action. Is it sufficient in regard to the fact the BYE will be send to the IP address in the Record-Route header ?
My configuration file contains: % if (method == "INVITE") { % record_route(); % force_rtp_proxy("r"); % t_on_reply("1"); % }
Thank you. Regards,
-
Carsten Bock -
Jeremie Le Hen -
Klaus Darilion -
raviprakash sunkara