26 Jan
2023
26 Jan
'23
5:27 p.m.
Hi
I'm trying to work around Route-Header and Via Issues with the two
topology hiding modules topoh and topos and trying to figure out, which
one works better for our environment.
My conclusion so far:
topos creates very clean header, but needs a database or redis. I'm
always reluctant in adding more components which could fail or cause
load.
topoh also works, but it worries me a bit that according to the manual:
https://www.kamailio.org/docs/modules/devel/modules/topoh.html#topoh.p.mask…
a private IP is used to mask the contact header.
I have come across a CPE which, as far as I see, is misbehaving by
ALWAYS sending a PRACK to the Hostname or IP found in the Contact
header, and ignoring Route and Via Header.
So why using a private IP as 'mask' and not the IP or Hostname of the
actual kamailio instance?
Mit freundlichen Grüssen
-Benoît Panizzon-
--
I m p r o W a r e A G - Leiter Commerce Kunden
______________________________________________________
Zurlindenstrasse 29 Tel +41 61 826 93 00
CH-4133 Pratteln Fax +41 61 826 93 01
Schweiz Web http://www.imp.ch
______________________________________________________
6:43 p.m.
Hi Patrick
Agreed, this could become an issue when we do dual stack ipv4 and ipv6
unless we use a hostname which will probably cause other issues.
But overall sip compliant component must Always follow
Route ip before contact IP.
I will test how the know buggy client behaves.
While testing with topos I came across another issue.
Then I have topos enabled on a REG instance, I see this PRACK
handling:
CPE <=> KAM Reg <=> KAM Core <=> IC
CPE => Invite, supported: 100rel
CPE <= 180 RINGING, required: 100rel
CPE => PRACK => KAM Reg => PRACK to itself looping MANY times adding a
VIA Header on each loop.
I don't understand, why in this situation, the REG is sending PRACK
to itself.
As soon as I comment out topos PRACK is sent correctly to the party
reqesting 100rel.
Any hint where to look?
Mit freundlichen Grüssen
-Benoît Panizzon-
--
I m p r o W a r e A G - Leiter Commerce Kunden
______________________________________________________
Zurlindenstrasse 29 Tel +41 61 826 93 00
CH-4133 Pratteln Fax +41 61 826 93 01
Schweiz Web http://www.imp.ch
______________________________________________________
27 Jan
27 Jan
12:08 p.m.
New subject: PRACK / ACK issue with topos (was: topos vs topoh, any reason for putting a private IP in the Contact header?)
Hi Patrick
Male sure record_route is used in kamailio script.
I will double check by outputing a notice to log before calling
record_route but I'm quite confident this is the case for invites.
Do I need to explicitely call record_route for ACK and PRACK or even
for all messages when using topos? Is this where topos hooks in?
Normally it should be used in initial invite.
Issue is not only PRACK, but also ACK.
I narrowed down the issue to this:
topos active:
if (has_totag()) {
# True
if ( t_check_trans() ) {
# False
route(RELAY);
} else {
# discard ACK not matching transaction
exit;
}
}
I end up discarding ACK and PRACK because they don't match a
transaction.
topos commented out:
if (has_totag()) {
# True
if ( t_check_trans() ) {
# True
route(RELAY);
} else {
# discard ACK not matching transaction
exit;
}
}
Ack is routed.
Any explanation why topos causes t_check_trans() to return false on ACK
and PRACK?
--
Mit freundlichen Grüssen
-Benoît Panizzon- @ HomeOffice und normal erreichbar
--
I m p r o W a r e A G - Leiter Commerce Kunden
______________________________________________________
Zurlindenstrasse 29 Tel +41 61 826 93 00
CH-4133 Pratteln Fax +41 61 826 93 01
Schweiz Web http://www.imp.ch
______________________________________________________
1:04 p.m.
New subject: PRACK / ACK issue with topos (was: topos vs topoh, any reason for putting a private IP in the Contact header?)
12:33 a.m.
Hi,
I am very happy with Topos and redis for such things. You should give it a
try. And topos had some nice contact header features also.
Benoit Panizzon <benoit.panizzon(a)imp.ch> schrieb am Do., 26. Jan. 2023,
16:01:
Hi
I'm trying to work around Route-Header and Via Issues with the two
topology hiding modules topoh and topos and trying to figure out, which
one works better for our environment.
My conclusion so far:
topos creates very clean header, but needs a database or redis. I'm
always reluctant in adding more components which could fail or cause
load.
topoh also works, but it worries me a bit that according to the manual:
https://www.kamailio.org/docs/modules/devel/modules/topoh.html#topoh.p.mask…
a private IP is used to mask the contact header.
I have come across a CPE which, as far as I see, is misbehaving by
ALWAYS sending a PRACK to the Hostname or IP found in the Contact
header, and ignoring Route and Via Header.
So why using a private IP as 'mask' and not the IP or Hostname of the
actual kamailio instance?
Mit freundlichen Grüssen
-Benoît Panizzon-
--
I m p r o W a r e A G - Leiter Commerce Kunden
______________________________________________________
Zurlindenstrasse 29 Tel +41 61 826 93 00
CH-4133 Pratteln Fax +41 61 826 93 01
Schweiz Web http://www.imp.ch
______________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
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:
665
days inactive
666
days old
6 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Benoit Panizzon -
Karsten Horsmann -
Patrick Karton