Hi Ben,
I understand your point of view.
As suggested I created a repository, so as to recreate the problem.
To/From all seems normal to me, which is why I don't understand. Maybe it
has nothing to do with topoh, but if active in certain cases it doesn't
work.
This is a copy of an ACK taken from production
```
ACK sip:rs4xe4w4@client_ip:2048;line=kkqgarrj SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
proxy_ip;branch=z9hG4bKc4aa.897ab3d4c4434cc636cb12e0c390a81a.0
Route: <sip:kamailio_ip:5060;lr;received=sip:client_ip:2048>
Max-Forwards: 66
From: <sip:phone_number@domain.tld>;tag=y3QX10D10tyQH
To: <sip:rs4xe4w4@domain.tld>;tag=31fhufhtrn
Call-ID: 04b3fa08-b9b4-43fe-b04a-cbe03bd5dc2d
CSeq: 90508938 ACK
Content-Length: 0
```
Thank you
On Thu, Oct 24, 2024 at 3:45 PM Ben Kaufman <bkaufman(a)bcmone.com> wrote:
I'd think your goal at this point should be to
simplify the config to the
smallest possible config that can produce the questionable behavior, and
then provide that entire config file (even better, implement this in docker
compose, using something like sipp to emulate your UAs, so that the
behavior can be easily reproduced by anyone). If the config is too big to
reasonably present in an email, then just put the sample code on github.
Several points with the sample config you cite. This thread subject says
that the error is with topoh enabled, but the code snippet presented
provides neither module parameters for topoh, nor any call to topoh
functions. Why are you asserting that topoh is the problem?
Your second line is a call to route(REQINIT), with no information on what
happens in that route. While we can guess that it's the same as the
default config file, there's no way to know for sure.
It's also not clear why the nat functions and add_path_received() are in
this config as it relates to this problem.
Start removing all of this for problem isolation until you can identify
where the problem is occuring. I'd also be curious if the error in
question is really a result of parsing the ACK or if it's something else
(trying to pull $ru off of a reply generates some kind of error like this I
think).
Finally, although it's not the RURI, WHAT is with the scheme on the URIs
in your To: and From: headers? 'Mailto"?
Regards,
Kaufman
------------------------------
*From:* Ale via sr-users <sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org>
*Sent:* Thursday, October 24, 2024 8:12 AM
*To:* Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List <sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org>
*Cc:* Ale <ale975(a)gmail.com>
*Subject:* [SR-Users] Re: Failed to parse the R-URI with topoh enabled
*CAUTION:* This email originated from outside the organization. *Do not
click links or open attachments* unless you recognize the sender and know
the content is safe.
Hi Victor,
I tested 5.7.6 and 5.8.3 and got the same results.
At the moment request_route is very simple.
request_route {
xlog("L_INFO", ">> $ru from $fu\n");
route(REQINIT);
force_rport();
if(!ds_is_from_list()) {
if( !loose_route() ) {
if( !ds_select_dst(DEFAULT_ROUTE, "1") ) {
drop();
}
}
if (nat_uac_test("19")) {
if (method=="REGISTER") {
fix_nated_register();
} else {
fix_nated_contact();
}
}
add_path_received();
}
record_route();
forward();
}
This is the logs of ack
DEBUG: [1 90333697 ACK ...] <core> [core/receive.c:263]:
ksr_evrt_pre_routing(): event route core:pre-routing not defined
DEBUG: [1 90333697 ACK ...] <core> [core/receive.c:474]: receive_msg():
preparing to run routing scripts...
DEBUG: [1 90333697 ACK ...] sl [sl_funcs.c:455]: sl_filter_ACK(): too late
to be a local ACK!
[137B blob data]
[134B blob data]
ERROR: [1 90333697 ACK ...] pv [pv_core.c:261]: pv_get_ruri(): failed to
parse the R-URI
DEBUG: [1 90333697 ACK ...] <core> [core/parser/parse_addr_spec.c:185]:
parse_to_param(): add param: tag=BrQ6ZyDyQHQmN
DEBUG: [1 90333697 ACK ...] <core> [core/parser/parse_addr_spec.c:904]:
parse_addr_spec(): end of header reached, state=29
Could this be a bug or did I miss something?
On Wed, Oct 23, 2024 at 4:47 PM Victor Seva via sr-users <
sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org> wrote:
Hi,
I would suggest to try a more recent Kamailio version first.
On 23/10/24 14:21, Ale via sr-users wrote:
Hi All,
I think I have a problem with topoh, but I can't identify it.
Kamailio 5.6.6, used as a stateless proxy, receives a 487 from a phone
and
propagates it correctly.
Next comes the ack that should be forwarded back
to the phone, but
instead it doesn't forward it and produces the following
error
"pv_get_ruri(): failed to parse the R-URI"
The error is generated by xlog("...$ru from $fu...\n"") as first line of
request_route.
If I disable topoh everything works perfectly.Topoh is only configured
with
mask_key only.
Furthermore, not all phones generate this
problem, at the moment there
are some snoms.
ACK sip:user@phone_ip:2048;line=kkqgarrj SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
proxy_sip_ip;branch=z9hG4bK2ec.e7126a3134bef9d974f57dd43ebd4ea2.0
Route:
<sip:kamailio_ip:5060;lr;received=sip:phone_ip:2048>
Max-Forwards: 66
From: <sip:111111111@sip.example.com <mailto:
sip%3A111111111(a)sip.example.com>>;tag=pDc1BQ0B57Ujj
To: <sip:user@sip.example.com
<mailto:sip%3Auser@sip.example.com
;tag=vslvowy4y2
Call-ID:
40a6c905-c0c8-4c20-b3f7-397b3fce58b6
CSeq: 90285584 ACK
Content Length: 0
There is no difference between the ACK of the snom and other phones that
work.
The only difference I noticed is that the snom
487 contains Contact
field in the header.
Any suggestions? Thank you
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| ,''`. Victor Seva |
| : :' : linuxmaniac(a)torreviejawireless.org |
| `. `' PGP: 8F19 CADC D42A 42D4 5563 730C 51A0 9B18 CF5A 5068 |
| `- Debian Developer |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
__________________________________________________________
Kamailio - Users Mailing List - Non Commercial Discussions
To unsubscribe send an email to sr-users-leave(a)lists.kamailio.org
Important: keep the mailing list in the recipients, do not reply only to
the sender!
Edit mailing list options or unsubscribe: