Here is the message dump that i get when using TCP as transport.
On 5/3/07, Jiri Kuthan jiri@iptel.org wrote:
I think you would have to send message dumps first so that [serusers] volunteers have material for providing an answer.
-jiri
At 12:07 03/05/2007, KUMAR wrote:
Hi all, I already posted this message yet havent got any replies. I really need to find this out. Please anyone reply to this problem.
I am using SER-0.9.6 and the problem i'm having is this. When using the following ser.cfg, it works well when the transport UDP is used. But when transport TCP is used, then it only results in one way IM, only from the UA from which the INVITE is being sent. Moreover, when record_route is used instead of record_route_preset, then even that one way IM doesn't work. But it works well with UDP.
Can anyone please point me as to where the problem might be?? Thank you in advance.
kumar
Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name=ser.cfg X-Attachment-Id: f_f18sg2bl Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="ser.cfg"
Serusers mailing list Serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
-- Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/
actually I was suggesting SIP message dump (PCAP file) as opposed to log files. -jiri
At 13:10 03/05/2007, KUMAR wrote:
Here is the message dump that i get when using TCP as transport.
On 5/3/07, Jiri Kuthan jiri@iptel.org wrote:
I think you would have to send message dumps first so that [serusers] volunteers have material for providing an answer.
-jiri
At 12:07 03/05/2007, KUMAR wrote:
Hi all, I already posted this message yet havent got any replies. I really need to find this out. Please anyone reply to this problem.
I am using SER-0.9.6 and the problem i'm having is this. When using the following ser.cfg, it works well when the transport UDP is used. But when transport TCP is used, then it only results in one way IM, only from the UA from which the INVITE is being sent. Moreover, when record_route is used instead of record_route_preset, then even that one way IM doesn't work. But it works well with UDP.
Can anyone please point me as to where the problem might be?? Thank you in advance.
kumar
Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name=ser.cfg X-Attachment-Id: f_f18sg2bl Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="ser.cfg"
Serusers mailing list Serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
-- Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/
Content-Type: audio/x-pn-realaudio-plugin; name="msg_dump.rar" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="msg_dump.rar" X-Attachment-Id: f_f1949112
Serusers mailing list Serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
-- Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/
Jiri Kuthan wrote:
actually I was suggesting SIP message dump (PCAP file) as opposed to log files. -jiri
or ngrep dump:
ngrep -t -W byline -d any port 5060
regards klaus
At 13:10 03/05/2007, KUMAR wrote:
Here is the message dump that i get when using TCP as transport.
On 5/3/07, Jiri Kuthan jiri@iptel.org wrote:
I think you would have to send message dumps first so that [serusers] volunteers have material for providing an answer.
-jiri
At 12:07 03/05/2007, KUMAR wrote:
Hi all, I already posted this message yet havent got any replies. I really need to find this out. Please anyone reply to this problem.
I am using SER-0.9.6 and the problem i'm having is this. When using the following ser.cfg, it works well when the transport UDP is used. But when transport TCP is used, then it only results in one way IM, only from the UA from which the INVITE is being sent. Moreover, when record_route is used instead of record_route_preset, then even that one way IM doesn't work. But it works well with UDP.
Can anyone please point me as to where the problem might be?? Thank you in advance.
kumar
Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name=ser.cfg X-Attachment-Id: f_f18sg2bl Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="ser.cfg"
Serusers mailing list Serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
-- Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/
Content-Type: audio/x-pn-realaudio-plugin; name="msg_dump.rar" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="msg_dump.rar" X-Attachment-Id: f_f1949112
Serusers mailing list Serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
-- Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/
Serusers mailing list Serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
Here are the packet captures. I was not quite sure whether I have to include packet captures from server or the UAs so i've included all of them. ua_A is sending INVITE to ua_B. thank you
regards kumar
On 5/3/07, Klaus Darilion klaus.mailinglists@pernau.at wrote:
Jiri Kuthan wrote:
actually I was suggesting SIP message dump (PCAP file) as opposed to log files. -jiri
or ngrep dump:
ngrep -t -W byline -d any port 5060
regards klaus
At 13:10 03/05/2007, KUMAR wrote:
Here is the message dump that i get when using TCP as transport.
On 5/3/07, Jiri Kuthan jiri@iptel.org wrote:
I think you would have to send message dumps first so that [serusers] volunteers have material for providing an answer.
-jiri
At 12:07 03/05/2007, KUMAR wrote:
Hi all, I already posted this message yet havent got any replies. I really need to find this out. Please anyone reply to this problem.
I am using SER-0.9.6 and the problem i'm having is this. When using the following ser.cfg, it works well when the transport UDP is used. But when transport TCP is used, then it only results in one way IM, only from the UA from which the INVITE is being sent. Moreover, when record_route is used instead of record_route_preset, then even that one way IM doesn't work. But it works well with UDP.
Can anyone please point me as to where the problem might be?? Thank you in advance.
kumar
Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name=ser.cfg X-Attachment-Id: f_f18sg2bl Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="ser.cfg"
Serusers mailing list Serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
-- Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/
Content-Type: audio/x-pn-realaudio-plugin; name="msg_dump.rar" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="msg_dump.rar" X-Attachment-Id: f_f1949112
Serusers mailing list Serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
-- Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/
Serusers mailing list Serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
Hello, I have a question about sequential forking and Merged Request. If in a forking SER calls two lines of the same client (different numbers and different Request-URIs) it refuses the second call with 482 (Cisco and Snom multiline phone for example) according with RFC 3261 section 8.2.2.2 because the two INVITEs have the same Call-Id, From tag and Cseq. If this behaviour is reasonable with a phone, it could not be acceptable for other types of client, first of all SIP-PSTN gateway. Is it correct this RFC interpretation? Maybe is this section inappropriate for gateways? Is there something that I can do in the config file?
********************************************************************** The information in this message is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this message by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, or distribution of the message, or any action or omission taken by you in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Please immediately contact the sender if you have received this message inerror.
**********************************************************************
Any device implementing UA functionality should follow RFC3261. But I'm not sure how you manage to fork off two INVITEs to the same gateway? I would start there. g-)
Zappasodi Daniele wrote:
Hello, I have a question about sequential forking and Merged Request. If in a forking SER calls two lines of the same client (different numbers and different Request-URIs) it refuses the second call with 482 (Cisco and Snom multiline phone for example) according with RFC 3261 section 8.2.2.2 because the two INVITEs have the same Call-Id, From tag and Cseq. If this behaviour is reasonable with a phone, it could not be acceptable for other types of client, first of all SIP-PSTN gateway. Is it correct this RFC interpretation? Maybe is this section inappropriate for gateways? Is there something that I can do in the config file?
The information in this message is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this message by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, or distribution of the message, or any action or omission taken by you in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Please immediately contact the sender if you have received this message inerror.
Serusers mailing list Serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
I have written a module that choose the next client reading the destination from a db, but I can easily obtain the same scenario with the basic serial forking example:
route{ [...] t_on_failure("1"); t_relay(); }
failure_route[1] { append_branch("sip:number1@mygw.com"); log(1,"first redirection\n"); t_on_failure("2"); t_relay(); }
failure_route[2] { append_branch("sip:number2@mygw.com"); log(1, "second redirection to the same gateway, but different number\n"); t_relay(); }
-----Messaggio originale----- Da: Greger V. Teigre [mailto:greger@teigre.com] Inviato: lun 07/05/2007 15.48 A: Zappasodi Daniele Cc: serusers@lists.iptel.org Oggetto: Re: [Serusers] sequential forking and merged request
Any device implementing UA functionality should follow RFC3261. But I'm not sure how you manage to fork off two INVITEs to the same gateway? I would start there. g-)
Zappasodi Daniele wrote:
Hello, I have a question about sequential forking and Merged Request. If in a forking SER calls two lines of the same client (different numbers and different Request-URIs) it refuses the second call with 482 (Cisco and Snom multiline phone for example) according with RFC 3261 section 8.2.2.2 because the two INVITEs have the same Call-Id, From tag and Cseq. If this behaviour is reasonable with a phone, it could not be acceptable for other types of client, first of all SIP-PSTN gateway. Is it correct this RFC interpretation? Maybe is this section inappropriate for gateways? Is there something that I can do in the config file?
The information in this message is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this message by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, or distribution of the message, or any action or omission taken by you in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Please immediately contact the sender if you have received this message inerror.
Serusers mailing list Serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
********************************************************************** The information in this message is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this message by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, or distribution of the message, or any action or omission taken by you in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Please immediately contact the sender if you have received this message inerror.
**********************************************************************
Well, in this case you need to test for the status code in the failure route. If you fork off several INVITEs in your main route, you don't get into the failure route until all branches failed. So, I still don't understand how you do it. Anyway, you want to avoid it, because you have a gateway that does not follow the RFC... g-)
Zappasodi Daniele wrote:
I have written a module that choose the next client reading the destination from a db, but I can easily obtain the same scenario with the basic serial forking example:
route{ [...] t_on_failure("1"); t_relay(); }
failure_route[1] { append_branch("sip:number1@mygw.com"); log(1,"first redirection\n"); t_on_failure("2"); t_relay(); }
failure_route[2] { append_branch("sip:number2@mygw.com"); log(1, "second redirection to the same gateway, but different number\n"); t_relay(); }
-----Messaggio originale----- Da: Greger V. Teigre [mailto:greger@teigre.com] Inviato: lun 07/05/2007 15.48 A: Zappasodi Daniele Cc: serusers@lists.iptel.org Oggetto: Re: [Serusers] sequential forking and merged request
Any device implementing UA functionality should follow RFC3261. But I'm not sure how you manage to fork off two INVITEs to the same gateway? I would start there. g-)
Zappasodi Daniele wrote:
Hello, I have a question about sequential forking and Merged Request. If in a forking SER calls two lines of the same client (different
numbers and different Request-URIs) it refuses the second call with 482 (Cisco and Snom multiline phone for example) according with RFC 3261 section 8.2.2.2 because the two INVITEs have the same Call-Id, From tag and Cseq.
If this behaviour is reasonable with a phone, it could not be
acceptable for other types of client, first of all SIP-PSTN gateway.
Is it correct this RFC interpretation? Maybe is this section
inappropriate for gateways?
Is there something that I can do in the config file?
The information in this message is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this
message
by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended
recipient, any
disclosure, copying, or distribution of the message, or any action or omission taken by you in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be
unlawful.
Please immediately contact the sender if you have received this
message inerror.
Serusers mailing list Serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
The information in this message is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this message by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, or distribution of the message, or any action or omission taken by you in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Please immediately contact the sender if you have received this message inerror.
When I invoke setflag or resetflag after t_newtran, the flags values don't change. I use the 0.9.6 version. Is this normal? Is there changes about this item in SER 2.0?
********************************************************************** The information in this message is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this message by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, or distribution of the message, or any action or omission taken by you in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Please immediately contact the sender if you have received this message inerror.
**********************************************************************
Zappasodi Daniele wrote:
When I invoke setflag or resetflag after t_newtran, the flags values don't change. I use the 0.9.6 version. Is this normal?
Yes, the transaction is stored in shared memory to make sure it is accessible to other processes.
Is there changes about this item in SER 2.0?
No, I don't think so. g-)
The information in this message is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this message by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, or distribution of the message, or any action or omission taken by you in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Please immediately contact the sender if you have received this message inerror.
Serusers mailing list Serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
Hi Kumar,
could you please attach also the capture (at the server is enough) of the UDP both way messages? There call flow is quite strange and not understandable.... (well not surprised that's M$ RTC :)
Some comments for now: 1) it seems the CLIENT IS BROKEN and does not understand lr=on flag for loose routing - see how is the ACK generated !!! You can try change rr module parameter to put just lr into the record-route (this might explain your rr and rr_preset difference)
2) M$ is used to misuse maddr, there is compile time flag HONOR_MADDR which you should have set to route such requests taking maddr into account
Michal
On Pá, 2007-05-04 at 09:52 +0545, KUMAR wrote:
Here are the packet captures. I was not quite sure whether I have to include packet captures from server or the UAs so i've included all of them. ua_A is sending INVITE to ua_B. thank you
regards kumar
On 5/3/07, Klaus Darilion klaus.mailinglists@pernau.at wrote:
Jiri Kuthan wrote:
actually I was suggesting SIP message dump (PCAP file) as opposed to log files. -jiri
or ngrep dump:
ngrep -t -W byline -d any port 5060
regards klaus
At 13:10 03/05/2007, KUMAR wrote:
Here is the message dump that i get when using TCP as transport.
On 5/3/07, Jiri Kuthan jiri@iptel.org wrote:
I think you would have to send message dumps first so that [serusers] volunteers have material for providing an answer.
-jiri
At 12:07 03/05/2007, KUMAR wrote: > - > Hi all, > I already posted this message yet havent got any replies. I really > need to find this out. > Please anyone reply to this problem. > > I am using SER-0.9.6 and the problem i'm having is this. When using > the following ser.cfg, it works well when the transport UDP is used. > But when transport TCP is used, then it only results in one way IM, > only from the UA from which the INVITE is being sent. Moreover, when > record_route is used instead of record_route_preset, then even that > one way IM doesn't work. But it works well with UDP. > > Can anyone please point me as to where the problem might be?? > Thank you in advance. > > kumar > > > Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name=ser.cfg > X-Attachment-Id: f_f18sg2bl > Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="ser.cfg" > > _______________________________________________ > Serusers mailing list > Serusers@lists.iptel.org > http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
-- Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/
Content-Type: audio/x-pn-realaudio-plugin; name="msg_dump.rar" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="msg_dump.rar" X-Attachment-Id: f_f1949112
Serusers mailing list Serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
-- Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/
Serusers mailing list Serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
Serusers mailing list Serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
Hi Michal, Sorry for my late response. Here are the packets while the transport UDP is used. regards kumar
On 5/4/07, Michal Matyska michal@iptel.org wrote:
Hi Kumar,
could you please attach also the capture (at the server is enough) of the UDP both way messages? There call flow is quite strange and not understandable.... (well not surprised that's M$ RTC :)
Some comments for now:
- it seems the CLIENT IS BROKEN and does not understand lr=on flag for
loose routing - see how is the ACK generated !!! You can try change rr module parameter to put just lr into the record-route (this might explain your rr and rr_preset difference)
- M$ is used to misuse maddr, there is compile time flag HONOR_MADDR
which you should have set to route such requests taking maddr into account
Michal
On Pá, 2007-05-04 at 09:52 +0545, KUMAR wrote:
Here are the packet captures. I was not quite sure whether I have to include packet captures from server or the UAs so i've included all of them. ua_A is sending INVITE to ua_B. thank you
regards kumar
On 5/3/07, Klaus Darilion klaus.mailinglists@pernau.at wrote:
Jiri Kuthan wrote:
actually I was suggesting SIP message dump (PCAP file) as opposed to log files. -jiri
or ngrep dump:
ngrep -t -W byline -d any port 5060
regards klaus
At 13:10 03/05/2007, KUMAR wrote:
Here is the message dump that i get when using TCP as transport.
On 5/3/07, Jiri Kuthan jiri@iptel.org wrote: > I think you would have to send message dumps first so that [serusers] volunteers > have material for providing an answer. > > -jiri > > At 12:07 03/05/2007, KUMAR wrote: >> - >> Hi all, >> I already posted this message yet havent got any replies. I really >> need to find this out. >> Please anyone reply to this problem. >> >> I am using SER-0.9.6 and the problem i'm having is this. When using >> the following ser.cfg, it works well when the transport UDP is used. >> But when transport TCP is used, then it only results in one way IM, >> only from the UA from which the INVITE is being sent. Moreover, when >> record_route is used instead of record_route_preset, then even that >> one way IM doesn't work. But it works well with UDP. >> >> Can anyone please point me as to where the problem might be?? >> Thank you in advance. >> >> kumar >> >> >> Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name=ser.cfg >> X-Attachment-Id: f_f18sg2bl >> Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="ser.cfg" >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Serusers mailing list >> Serusers@lists.iptel.org >> http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers > > > -- > Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/ > >
Content-Type: audio/x-pn-realaudio-plugin; name="msg_dump.rar" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="msg_dump.rar" X-Attachment-Id: f_f1949112
Serusers mailing list Serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
-- Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/
Serusers mailing list Serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
Serusers mailing list Serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
Hi,
commetns inline
On Po, 2007-05-07 at 10:04 +0545, KUMAR wrote:
Hi Michal, Sorry for my late response. Here are the packets while the transport UDP is used. regards kumar
On 5/4/07, Michal Matyska michal@iptel.org wrote:
Hi Kumar,
could you please attach also the capture (at the server is enough) of the UDP both way messages? There call flow is quite strange and not understandable.... (well not surprised that's M$ RTC :)
Some comments for now:
- it seems the CLIENT IS BROKEN and does not understand lr=on flag for
loose routing - see how is the ACK generated !!! You can try change rr module parameter to put just lr into the record-route (this might explain your rr and rr_preset difference)
Taking back, the client code is not broken, it is obsoleted only ;-) It uses strict router procedures (RFC2543), to create the Route header and Request-URI in subsequent within-dialog requests, but SER's loose_route function call should be able to escape form that (and it is, the rewritten request uri shows that). If you want to check, you should see "after_strict" message in your debug output.
- M$ is used to misuse maddr, there is compile time flag HONOR_MADDR
which you should have set to route such requests taking maddr into account
This seems to be the main issue, the client does not put maddr into the UDP requests. Check the Route header from the client in the TCP and UDP captures to see the difference.
Recompile SER with the option HONOR_MADDR set and it should work. If not, please provide SER output with debug=4 statement in you ser.cfg, while running the TCP usecase.
Michal
On Pá, 2007-05-04 at 09:52 +0545, KUMAR wrote:
Here are the packet captures. I was not quite sure whether I have to include packet captures from server or the UAs so i've included all of them. ua_A is sending INVITE to ua_B. thank you
regards kumar
On 5/3/07, Klaus Darilion klaus.mailinglists@pernau.at wrote:
Jiri Kuthan wrote:
actually I was suggesting SIP message dump (PCAP file) as opposed to log files. -jiri
or ngrep dump:
ngrep -t -W byline -d any port 5060
regards klaus
At 13:10 03/05/2007, KUMAR wrote:
Here is the message dump that i get when using TCP as transport. > > On 5/3/07, Jiri Kuthan jiri@iptel.org wrote: >> I think you would have to send message dumps first so that [serusers] volunteers >> have material for providing an answer. >> >> -jiri >> >> At 12:07 03/05/2007, KUMAR wrote: >>> - >>> Hi all, >>> I already posted this message yet havent got any replies. I really >>> need to find this out. >>> Please anyone reply to this problem. >>> >>> I am using SER-0.9.6 and the problem i'm having is this. When using >>> the following ser.cfg, it works well when the transport UDP is used. >>> But when transport TCP is used, then it only results in one way IM, >>> only from the UA from which the INVITE is being sent. Moreover, when >>> record_route is used instead of record_route_preset, then even that >>> one way IM doesn't work. But it works well with UDP. >>> >>> Can anyone please point me as to where the problem might be?? >>> Thank you in advance. >>> >>> kumar >>> >>> >>> Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name=ser.cfg >>> X-Attachment-Id: f_f18sg2bl >>> Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="ser.cfg" >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Serusers mailing list >>> Serusers@lists.iptel.org >>> http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers >> >> >> -- >> Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/ >> >>
Content-Type: audio/x-pn-realaudio-plugin; name="msg_dump.rar" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="msg_dump.rar" X-Attachment-Id: f_f1949112
Serusers mailing list Serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
-- Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/
Serusers mailing list Serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
Serusers mailing list Serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
-
Greger V. Teigre -
Jiri Kuthan -
Klaus Darilion -
KUMAR -
Michal Matyska -
Zappasodi Daniele