20 Nov
2013
20 Nov
'13
4:03 p.m.
Hello,
I work on interconnecting an old SER version with Kamailio.
When a BYE is sent by the old SER, the "if (loose_route)" instruction
returns false and then a "404 Not here" is sent. So the BYE is not relay to
the UA.
If the BYE is sent by Kamailio, no problem.
Here are the BYE headers received by Kamailio:
Record-Route: sip:OLD_SER_IP_ADDRESS;ftag=e97b7b77c5a3a9cc;lr=on
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP OLD_SER_IP_ADDRESS;branch=z9hG4bKc9e5.3cbad207.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
UA_IP_ADDRESS_CONNECTED_TO_OLD_SER:5060;rport=5060;branch=z9hG4bK1fbe0a49fe3
44e6af1efd45b74305a9a
Route: sip:KAMAILIO_IP_ADDRESS;lr=on
I looked at the RR module documentation and it's clearly said that "The
loose_route function analyzes the Route: headers in the requests. [.]If a
Route: header is found, the function returns 1 and behaves as described in
section 16.12 of RFC 3261.".
Someone has an idea?
Regards,
Igor.
---
Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la
protection avast! Antivirus est active.
http://www.avast.com
20 Nov
20 Nov
4:06 p.m.
Igor,
Can you provide the full BYE message, not just some of the headers?
Thanks,
-- Alex
--
Alex Balashov - Principal
Evariste Systems LLC
235 E Ponce de Leon Ave
Suite 106
Decatur, GA 30030
United States
Tel: +1-678-954-0670
Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/, http://www.alexbalashov.com/
5:41 p.m.
Hello,
you have to give all the BYE -- the best is to send from the first
INVITE to the last BYE, because it matters how the record-route are
built for INVITE.
I suspect that the BYE comes with r-uri having kamailio address, if the
old ser does fix natted contact (which should not do in this case).
Cheers,
Daniel
On 11/20/13 3:03 PM, Igor Potjevlesch wrote:
Hello,
I work on interconnecting an old SER version with Kamailio.
When a BYE is sent by the old SER, the "if (loose_route)" instruction
returns false and then a "404 Not here" is sent. So the BYE is not
relay to the UA.
If the BYE is sent by Kamailio, no problem.
Here are the BYE headers received by Kamailio:
Record-Route: sip:OLD_SER_IP_ADDRESS;ftag=e97b7b77c5a3a9cc;lr=on
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP OLD_SER_IP_ADDRESS;branch=z9hG4bKc9e5.3cbad207.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
UA_IP_ADDRESS_CONNECTED_TO_OLD_SER:5060;rport=5060;branch=z9hG4bK1fbe0a49fe344e6af1efd45b74305a9a
Route: sip:KAMAILIO_IP_ADDRESS;lr=on
I looked at the RR module documentation and it's clearly said that
"The loose_route function analyzes the Route: headers in the requests.
[...]If a Route: header is found, the function returns 1 and behaves
as described in section 16.12 of RFC 3261.".
Someone has an idea?
Regards,
Igor.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<http://www.avast.com/>
Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel
malveillant parce que la protection Antivirus avast!
<http://www.avast.com/> est active.
_______________________________________________
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
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla - http://www.asipto.com
http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
Kamailio Advanced Trainings - Berlin, Nov 25-28
- more details about Kamailio trainings at http://www.asipto.com -
7:10 p.m.
Hello,
Thank you for your reply. Indeed, I think that R-URI contains the kamailio
address.
Here is the full trace :
Frame 35: 1015 bytes on wire (8120 bits), 1015 bytes captured (8120 bits)
Ethernet II, Src: b0:fa:eb:fc:9a:40 (b0:fa:eb:fc:9a:40), Dst:
Broadcom_6c:77:94 (00:10:18:6c:77:94)
Internet Protocol Version 4, Src: IP_ADDRESS_KAMAILIO (IP_ADDRESS_KAMAILIO),
Dst: IP_ADDRESS_OLD_SER (IP_ADDRESS_OLD_SER)
User Datagram Protocol, Src Port: sip (5060), Dst Port: sip (5060)
Session Initiation Protocol
Request-Line: INVITE sip:101@sip.fqdn SIP/2.0
Message Header
Record-Route: <sip:IP_ADDRESS_KAMAILIO;lr=on>
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP IP_ADDRESS_KAMAILIO;branch=z9hG4bKb9e5.f4f14df5.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP IP_END_USER:5060;rport=5060;branch=z9hG4bK-dfc0fcaa
From: "102" <sip:102@sip.fqdn>;tag=806b7e8f1bbefb72o0
To: <sip:101@sip.fqdn>
Call-ID: e2d6ce93-527a4b3e(a)192.168.10.41
CSeq: 102 INVITE
Max-Forwards: 16
Contact: "102" <sip:102@IP_END_USER:5060>
Expires: 240
User-Agent: Cisco/SPA525G2-7.5.2a
Content-Length: 314
Allow: ACK, BYE, CANCEL, INFO, INVITE, NOTIFY, OPTIONS, REFER,
UPDATE
Supported: replaces
Content-Type: application/sdp
Message Body
Frame 40: 681 bytes on wire (5448 bits), 681 bytes captured (5448 bits)
Ethernet II, Src: Broadcom_6c:77:94 (00:10:18:6c:77:94), Dst:
b0:fa:eb:fc:9a:40 (b0:fa:eb:fc:9a:40)
Internet Protocol Version 4, Src: IP_ADDRESS_OLD_SER (IP_ADDRESS_OLD_SER),
Dst: IP_ADDRESS_KAMAILIO (IP_ADDRESS_KAMAILIO)
User Datagram Protocol, Src Port: sip (5060), Dst Port: sip (5060)
Session Initiation Protocol
Status-Line: SIP/2.0 180 Ringing
Message Header
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
IP_ADDRESS_KAMAILIO;rport=5060;branch=z9hG4bKb9e5.f4f14df5.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP IP_END_USER:5060;rport=5060;branch=z9hG4bK-dfc0fcaa
Record-Route: <sip:IP_ADDRESS_OLD_SER;ftag=806b7e8f1bbefb72o0;lr=on>
Record-Route: <sip:IP_ADDRESS_KAMAILIO;lr=on>
From: "102" <sip:102@sip.fqdn>;tag=806b7e8f1bbefb72o0
To: <sip:101@sip.fqdn>;tag=e97b7b77c5a3a9cc
Call-ID: e2d6ce93-527a4b3e(a)192.168.10.41
CSeq: 102 INVITE
Contact: "Extn1074" <sip:101@10.141.0.21:5060;transport=udp>
Allow: INVITE, ACK, CANCEL, OPTIONS, BYE, REFER, NOTIFY, INFO,
UPDATE
Supported: timer
Content-Length: 0
Frame 149: 932 bytes on wire (7456 bits), 932 bytes captured (7456 bits)
Ethernet II, Src: Broadcom_6c:77:94 (00:10:18:6c:77:94), Dst:
b0:fa:eb:fc:9a:40 (b0:fa:eb:fc:9a:40)
Internet Protocol Version 4, Src: IP_ADDRESS_OLD_SER (IP_ADDRESS_OLD_SER),
Dst: IP_ADDRESS_KAMAILIO (IP_ADDRESS_KAMAILIO)
User Datagram Protocol, Src Port: sip (5060), Dst Port: sip (5060)
Session Initiation Protocol
Status-Line: SIP/2.0 200 Ok
Message Header
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
IP_ADDRESS_KAMAILIO;rport=5060;branch=z9hG4bKb9e5.f4f14df5.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP IP_END_USER:5060;rport=5060;branch=z9hG4bK-dfc0fcaa
Record-Route: <sip:IP_ADDRESS_OLD_SER;ftag=806b7e8f1bbefb72o0;lr=on>
Record-Route: <sip:IP_ADDRESS_KAMAILIO;lr=on>
From: "102" <sip:102@sip.fqdn>;tag=806b7e8f1bbefb72o0
To: <sip:101@sip.fqdn>;tag=e97b7b77c5a3a9cc
Call-ID: e2d6ce93-527a4b3e(a)192.168.10.41
CSeq: 102 INVITE
Contact: "Extn1074" <sip:101@10.141.0.21:5060;transport=udp>
Allow: INVITE, ACK, CANCEL, OPTIONS, BYE, REFER, NOTIFY, INFO,
UPDATE
Supported: timer
Content-Type: application/sdp
Content-Length: 223
Message Body
Frame 150: 817 bytes on wire (6536 bits), 817 bytes captured (6536 bits)
Ethernet II, Src: b0:fa:eb:fc:9a:40 (b0:fa:eb:fc:9a:40), Dst:
Broadcom_6c:77:94 (00:10:18:6c:77:94)
Internet Protocol Version 4, Src: IP_ADDRESS_KAMAILIO (IP_ADDRESS_KAMAILIO),
Dst: IP_ADDRESS_OLD_SER (IP_ADDRESS_OLD_SER)
User Datagram Protocol, Src Port: sip (5060), Dst Port: sip (5060)
Session Initiation Protocol
Request-Line: ACK sip:101@10.141.0.21:5060;transport=udp SIP/2.0
Message Header
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP IP_ADDRESS_KAMAILIO;branch=z9hG4bKcydzigwkX
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP IP_END_USER:5060;rport=5060;branch=z9hG4bK-2fac85aa
From: "102" <sip:102@sip.fqdn>;tag=806b7e8f1bbefb72o0
To: <sip:101@sip.fqdn>;tag=e97b7b77c5a3a9cc
Call-ID: e2d6ce93-527a4b3e(a)192.168.10.41
CSeq: 102 ACK
Max-Forwards: 16
Route: <sip:IP_ADDRESS_OLD_SER;ftag=806b7e8f1bbefb72o0;lr=on>
Proxy-Authorization: Digest
username="102",realm="sip.fqdn",nonce="Uoyii1KMoV+WyB1HA74q80A/4nYiA8jL",uri
="sip:101@sip.fqdn",algorithm=MD5,response="5ee662c87271f39b9e6eccb9bd0b6b59
"
Contact: "102" <sip:102@IP_END_USER:5060>
User-Agent: Cisco/SPA525G2-7.5.2a
Content-Length: 0
Frame 1326: 737 bytes on wire (5896 bits), 737 bytes captured (5896 bits)
Ethernet II, Src: Broadcom_6c:77:94 (00:10:18:6c:77:94), Dst:
b0:fa:eb:fc:9a:40 (b0:fa:eb:fc:9a:40)
Internet Protocol Version 4, Src: IP_ADDRESS_OLD_SER (IP_ADDRESS_OLD_SER),
Dst: IP_ADDRESS_KAMAILIO (IP_ADDRESS_KAMAILIO)
User Datagram Protocol, Src Port: sip (5060), Dst Port: sip (5060)
Session Initiation Protocol
Request-Line: BYE sip:102@IP_ADDRESS_KAMAILIO:5060 SIP/2.0
Message Header
Record-Route: <sip:IP_ADDRESS_OLD_SER;ftag=e97b7b77c5a3a9cc;lr=on>
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP IP_ADDRESS_OLD_SER;branch=z9hG4bKc9e5.3cbad207.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
10.141.0.21:5060;rport=5060;branch=z9hG4bK1fbe0a49fe344e6af1efd45b74305a9a
Route: <sip:IP_ADDRESS_KAMAILIO;lr=on>
From: "101" <sip:101@sip.fqdn>;tag=e97b7b77c5a3a9cc
To: "102" <sip:102@sip.fqdn>;tag=806b7e8f1bbefb72o0
Call-ID: e2d6ce93-527a4b3e(a)192.168.10.41
CSeq: 103 BYE
Contact: "Extn1074" <sip:101@10.141.0.21:5060;transport=udp>
Max-Forwards: 16
Allow: INVITE, ACK, CANCEL, OPTIONS, BYE, REFER, NOTIFY, INFO,
UPDATE
Supported: timer
Content-Length: 0
Frame 1328: 478 bytes on wire (3824 bits), 478 bytes captured (3824 bits)
Ethernet II, Src: b0:fa:eb:fc:9a:40 (b0:fa:eb:fc:9a:40), Dst:
Broadcom_6c:77:94 (00:10:18:6c:77:94)
Internet Protocol Version 4, Src: IP_ADDRESS_KAMAILIO (IP_ADDRESS_KAMAILIO),
Dst: IP_ADDRESS_OLD_SER (IP_ADDRESS_OLD_SER)
User Datagram Protocol, Src Port: sip (5060), Dst Port: sip (5060)
Session Initiation Protocol
Status-Line: SIP/2.0 404 Not here
Message Header
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
IP_ADDRESS_OLD_SER;rport=5060;branch=z9hG4bKc9e5.3cbad207.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
10.141.0.21:5060;rport=5060;branch=z9hG4bK1fbe0a49fe344e6af1efd45b74305a9a
From: "101" <sip:101@sip.fqdn>;tag=e97b7b77c5a3a9cc
To: "102" <sip:102@sip.fqdn>;tag=806b7e8f1bbefb72o0
Call-ID: e2d6ce93-527a4b3e(a)192.168.10.41
CSeq: 103 BYE
Server: Kamailio (2.0)
Content-Length: 0
Regards,
Igor.
De : sr-users-bounces(a)lists.sip-router.org
[mailto:sr-users-bounces@lists.sip-router.org] De la part de
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
Envoyé : mercredi 20 novembre 2013 16:42
À : Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
Objet : Re: [SR-Users] Problem with loose_route for a BYE
Hello,
you have to give all the BYE -- the best is to send from the first INVITE to
the last BYE, because it matters how the record-route are built for INVITE.
I suspect that the BYE comes with r-uri having kamailio address, if the old
ser does fix natted contact (which should not do in this case).
Cheers,
Daniel
On 11/20/13 3:03 PM, Igor Potjevlesch wrote:
Hello,
I work on interconnecting an old SER version with Kamailio.
When a BYE is sent by the old SER, the if (loose_route) instruction
returns false and then a 404 Not here is sent. So the BYE is not relay to
the UA.
If the BYE is sent by Kamailio, no problem.
Here are the BYE headers received by Kamailio:
Record-Route: sip:OLD_SER_IP_ADDRESS;ftag=e97b7b77c5a3a9cc;lr=on
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP OLD_SER_IP_ADDRESS;branch=z9hG4bKc9e5.3cbad207.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
UA_IP_ADDRESS_CONNECTED_TO_OLD_SER:5060;rport=5060;branch=z9hG4bK1fbe0a49fe3
44e6af1efd45b74305a9a
Route: sip:KAMAILIO_IP_ADDRESS;lr=on
I looked at the RR module documentation and its clearly said that The
loose_route function analyzes the Route: headers in the requests. [
]If a
Route: header is found, the function returns 1 and behaves as described in
section 16.12 of RFC 3261..
Someone has an idea?
Regards,
Igor.
_____
<http://www.avast.com/>
Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant
parce que la protection Antivirus avast! <http://www.avast.com/> est
active.
_______________________________________________
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
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla - http://www.asipto.com
http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
Kamailio Advanced Trainings - Berlin, Nov 25-28
- more details about Kamailio trainings at http://www.asipto.com -
---
Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la
protection avast! Antivirus est active.
http://www.avast.com
11:37 p.m.
On 11/20/13 6:10 PM, Igor Potjevlesch wrote:
Hello,
Thank you for your reply. Indeed, I think that R-URI contains the
kamailio address.
The old ser should not do fix_nated_contact() for traffic comming from
kamailio. It is not in the position to figure out the address of the nat
router. That is done by kamailio (which should use anyhow
add_contact_alias(), because it is a better alternative for nat fixing).
Cheers,
Daniel
[...]
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla - http://www.asipto.com
http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
Kamailio Advanced Trainings - Berlin, Nov 25-28
- more details about Kamailio trainings at http://www.asipto.com -
21 Nov
21 Nov
12:57 p.m.
Thank you Daniel for your analyse. Its strange, because theres no NAT.
We force the RTPProxy in order to bypass routing issue in this call-flow,
but both platform are reachable with public IP address.
I will look at the old SER and see why he does fix_nated_contact().
Regards,
Igor.
De : sr-users-bounces(a)lists.sip-router.org
[mailto:sr-users-bounces@lists.sip-router.org] De la part de
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
Envoyé : mercredi 20 novembre 2013 22:37
À : Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
Objet : Re: [SR-Users] Problem with loose_route for a BYE
On 11/20/13 6:10 PM, Igor Potjevlesch wrote:
Hello,
Thank you for your reply. Indeed, I think that R-URI contains the kamailio
address.
The old ser should not do fix_nated_contact() for traffic comming from
kamailio. It is not in the position to figure out the address of the nat
router. That is done by kamailio (which should use anyhow
add_contact_alias(), because it is a better alternative for nat fixing).
Cheers,
Daniel
[...]
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla - http://www.asipto.com
http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
Kamailio Advanced Trainings - Berlin, Nov 25-28
- more details about Kamailio trainings at http://www.asipto.com -
---
Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la
protection avast! Antivirus est active.
http://www.avast.com
25 Nov
25 Nov
11:14 a.m.
Hello Daniel,
You were right. Thank you!
Regards,
Igor.
De : sr-users-bounces(a)lists.sip-router.org
[mailto:sr-users-bounces@lists.sip-router.org] De la part de
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
Envoyé : mercredi 20 novembre 2013 22:37
À : Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
Objet : Re: [SR-Users] Problem with loose_route for a BYE
On 11/20/13 6:10 PM, Igor Potjevlesch wrote:
Hello,
Thank you for your reply. Indeed, I think that R-URI contains the kamailio
address.
The old ser should not do fix_nated_contact() for traffic comming from
kamailio. It is not in the position to figure out the address of the nat
router. That is done by kamailio (which should use anyhow
add_contact_alias(), because it is a better alternative for nat fixing).
Cheers,
Daniel
[...]
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla - http://www.asipto.com
http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
Kamailio Advanced Trainings - Berlin, Nov 25-28
- more details about Kamailio trainings at http://www.asipto.com -
---
Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la
protection avast! Antivirus est active.
http://www.avast.com
4015
days inactive
4020
days old
6 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Alex Balashov -
Daniel-Constantin Mierla -
Igor Potjevlesch