4 Dec
2014
4 Dec
'14
1:24 p.m.
I'm facing a problem which I believe may be a bug in the registrar module's
lookup. When a registration comes with multiple Path headers, these are
recorded in the location table as comma separated. When the lookup is
performed and these are used to construct the Route header(s) on an INVITE,
this comma-separated list is not split into multiple Route headers, but
instead included verbatim in a single header.
Here comes my theory for how this breaks my scenario:
When the INVITE then reaches the first hop (first Path header, also
Kamailio), relay() sees that the Route header is itself and/or sees that
there is only one Route header.
The observed result is that the first hop then sends the INVITE directly to
the Contact, instead of via the second hop.
An example of the situation I'm facing is shown in
https://gist.github.com/benlangfeld/b374a0ce0bdb6bdc35e7.
Is there a particular reason the combined path is not split on lookup? Is
this a bug / oversight? Am I crazy?
Thanks!
Ben
4 Dec
4 Dec
2:09 p.m.
Hello,
having more record-route addresses in the same header, separated by
comma, it is valid. Other headers (Via, Record-Route, Supported,
Required ...) can have same format, it is a matter of UAC how it builds
them, each with a header name or all under same header name.
Cheers,
Daniel
On 04/12/14 12:24, Ben Langfeld wrote:
I'm facing a problem which I believe may be a bug
in the registrar
module's lookup. When a registration comes with multiple Path headers,
these are recorded in the location table as comma separated. When the
lookup is performed and these are used to construct the Route
header(s) on an INVITE, this comma-separated list is not split into
multiple Route headers, but instead included verbatim in a single header.
Here comes my theory for how this breaks my scenario:
When the INVITE then reaches the first hop (first Path header, also
Kamailio), relay() sees that the Route header is itself and/or sees
that there is only one Route header.
The observed result is that the first hop then sends the INVITE
directly to the Contact, instead of via the second hop.
An example of the situation I'm facing is shown
in https://gist.github.com/benlangfeld/b374a0ce0bdb6bdc35e7.
Is there a particular reason the combined path is not split on lookup?
Is this a bug / oversight? Am I crazy?
Thanks!
Ben
_______________________________________________
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://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
2:35 p.m.
In that case the issue would have to be with the Kamailio-based edge proxy
which is not routing based on the second Route in the list. Is that a known
issue? I can provide more details if you think I'm on the right track.
On 4 December 2014 at 10:09, Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Hello,
having more record-route addresses in the same header, separated by comma,
it is valid. Other headers (Via, Record-Route, Supported, Required ...) can
have same format, it is a matter of UAC how it builds them, each with a
header name or all under same header name.
Cheers,
Daniel
On 04/12/14 12:24, Ben Langfeld wrote:
I'm facing a problem which I believe may be a bug in the registrar
module's lookup. When a registration comes with multiple Path headers,
these are recorded in the location table as comma separated. When the
lookup is performed and these are used to construct the Route header(s) on
an INVITE, this comma-separated list is not split into multiple Route
headers, but instead included verbatim in a single header.
Here comes my theory for how this breaks my scenario:
When the INVITE then reaches the first hop (first Path header, also
Kamailio), relay() sees that the Route header is itself and/or sees that
there is only one Route header.
The observed result is that the first hop then sends the INVITE directly
to the Contact, instead of via the second hop.
An example of the situation I'm facing is shown in
https://gist.github.com/benlangfeld/b374a0ce0bdb6bdc35e7.
Is there a particular reason the combined path is not split on lookup?
Is this a bug / oversight? Am I crazy?
Thanks!
Ben
_______________________________________________
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
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierlahttp://twitter.com/#!/miconda -
http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
_______________________________________________
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
4:16 p.m.
You should put the config somewhere for review. Note that default
kamailio.cfg ignores Route headers for initial requests. You have to
handle initial requests with loose_route().
Cheers,
Daniel
On 04/12/14 13:35, Ben Langfeld wrote:
In that case the issue would have to be with the
Kamailio-based edge
proxy which is not routing based on the second Route in the list. Is
that a known issue? I can provide more details if you think I'm on the
right track.
On 4 December 2014 at 10:09, Daniel-Constantin Mierla
<miconda(a)gmail.com <mailto:miconda@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hello,
having more record-route addresses in the same header, separated
by comma, it is valid. Other headers (Via, Record-Route,
Supported, Required ...) can have same format, it is a matter of
UAC how it builds them, each with a header name or all under same
header name.
Cheers,
Daniel
On 04/12/14 12:24, Ben Langfeld wrote:
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
I'm facing a problem which I believe may
be a bug in the
registrar module's lookup. When a registration comes with
multiple Path headers, these are recorded in the location table
as comma separated. When the lookup is performed and these are
used to construct the Route header(s) on an INVITE, this
comma-separated list is not split into multiple Route headers,
but instead included verbatim in a single header.
Here comes my theory for how this breaks my scenario:
When the INVITE then reaches the first hop (first Path header,
also Kamailio), relay() sees that the Route header is itself
and/or sees that there is only one Route header.
The observed result is that the first hop then sends the INVITE
directly to the Contact, instead of via the second hop.
An example of the situation I'm facing is shown
in https://gist.github.com/benlangfeld/b374a0ce0bdb6bdc35e7.
Is there a particular reason the combined path is not split on
lookup? Is this a bug / oversight? Am I crazy?
Thanks!
Ben
_______________________________________________
SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list
sr-users(a)lists.sip-router.org <mailto:sr-users@lists.sip-router.org>
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
http://twitter.com/#!/miconda <http://twitter.com/#%21/miconda> -
http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
_______________________________________________
SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing
list
sr-users(a)lists.sip-router.org <mailto:sr-users@lists.sip-router.org>
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
5:54 p.m.
Thanks Daniel. Config can be found here:
https://gist.github.com/benlangfeld/1b61f41c31129e8f2db3
INVITEs as provided (with a Route with two comma-separated elements) get
routed via the Contact header (instead of the second Route element).
When I use loose_route() on the INVITE, it goes into a loop in the edge
proxy (https://gist.github.com/benlangfeld/99af9045e70a9bb4eeed), even
though the IP it selects to route to (.14) is not the same server.
Ben
On 4 December 2014 at 12:16, Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
You should put the config somewhere for review. Note
that default
kamailio.cfg ignores Route headers for initial requests. You have to handle
initial requests with loose_route().
Cheers,
Daniel
On 04/12/14 13:35, Ben Langfeld wrote:
In that case the issue would have to be with the Kamailio-based edge proxy
which is not routing based on the second Route in the list. Is that a known
issue? I can provide more details if you think I'm on the right track.
On 4 December 2014 at 10:09, Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Hello,
having more record-route addresses in the same header, separated by
comma, it is valid. Other headers (Via, Record-Route, Supported, Required
...) can have same format, it is a matter of UAC how it builds them, each
with a header name or all under same header name.
Cheers,
Daniel
On 04/12/14 12:24, Ben Langfeld wrote:
I'm facing a problem which I believe may be a bug in the registrar
module's lookup. When a registration comes with multiple Path headers,
these are recorded in the location table as comma separated. When the
lookup is performed and these are used to construct the Route header(s) on
an INVITE, this comma-separated list is not split into multiple Route
headers, but instead included verbatim in a single header.
Here comes my theory for how this breaks my scenario:
When the INVITE then reaches the first hop (first Path header, also
Kamailio), relay() sees that the Route header is itself and/or sees that
there is only one Route header.
The observed result is that the first hop then sends the INVITE
directly to the Contact, instead of via the second hop.
An example of the situation I'm facing is shown in
https://gist.github.com/benlangfeld/b374a0ce0bdb6bdc35e7.
Is there a particular reason the combined path is not split on lookup?
Is this a bug / oversight? Am I crazy?
Thanks!
Ben
_______________________________________________
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
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierlahttp://twitter.com/#!/miconda -
http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
_______________________________________________
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 Mierlahttp://twitter.com/#!/miconda -
http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
3643
days inactive
3643
days old
4 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Ben Langfeld -
Ben Langfeld -
Daniel-Constantin Mierla