On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 12:24 PM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda@gmail.com> wrote:

On 03/03/14 18:08, Marc Soda wrote:
I resolved the issue, but I not quite sure why is worked.  Rather than sending the REGISTER with t_reply()

t_reply() is not sending REGISTER anywhere, it is sending a reply (sip response) for a request.

Oops, I meant t_relay().  I forwarded the register by calling on_failure_route(), then route(RELAY), rather than on_failure_route(), then t_relay().  I realize that route(RELAY) eventually calls t_relay(), I'm just not sure why that fixed the issue.
 

In short, be sure you set the appropriate failure route for the request and forward it with t_relay().

Cheers,
Daniel


, I changed it to call route(RELAY) which does this:

route[RELAY] {
  xlog("L_NOTICE","route[RELAY] ($rm)\n");

  if (is_method("INVITE|BYE|SUBSCRIBE|UPDATE")) {
    if (!t_is_set("branch_route")) t_on_branch("MANAGE_BRANCH");
  }

  if (is_method("INVITE|SUBSCRIBE|UPDATE")) {
    if (!t_is_set("onreply_route")) t_on_reply("MANAGE_REPLY");
  }

  if (is_method("INVITE")) {
    if (!t_is_set("failure_route")) t_on_failure("MANAGE_FAILURE");
  }

  xlog("L_NOTICE","t_relay()'ing ($rm)\n");

  if (!t_relay()) {
    sl_reply_error();
  }
  exit;
}

I thought that maybe the issue was that I was getting a 100 TRYING right before the 401, and maybe I needed to setup a reply route as well.  However, as you can see above, MANAGE_REPLY isn't set for REGISTERs.  Why did this fix the problem?

Marc

On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 11:52 AM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda@gmail.com> wrote:
Are you sure you have set t_on_failure() for the respective transaction?

Cheers,
Daniel


On 03/03/14 17:44, Marc Soda wrote:
So I've found out that NAT has nothing to do with it.  The bit about things working when the NAT device is removed was wrong.

So my question becomes:  Why would Kamailio ignore a 401 rather sending it to a failure route?

Thanks in advance,
Marc


On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 9:10 AM, Marc Soda <msoda@coredial.com> wrote:
I forget to mention, the nat device is in front of the Kamailio servers, not the endpoints.


On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 6:22 PM, Marc Soda <msoda@coredial.com> wrote:
I have a Kamailio server setup which is registers to a back end server on behalf of endpoints.  The endpoints can register to Kamailio but Kamailio is failing to register to the server when I put a NAT device in front of it.  Without the NAT device it works fine.

The problem is the 401 that comes back seems to be ignored by Kamailio.  I have a failure route setup to auth, but it is never hit.  I see the 401 in onrely_route, but not the failure_route.  I'm assuming it's a NAT issue because removing the device fixes the issue.

Anyone have any ideas?

The 401 being ignored:

SIP/2.0 401 Unauthorized
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 10.0.10.11;branch=z9hG4bKe5d6.178378f7.0;received=198.XXX.XXX.XXX
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 127.0.0.1:12354;rport=6545;received=198.XXX.YYY.YYY;branch=z9hG4bK-1879-1-3
CSeq: 2 REGISTER
User-Agent: CoreDialPBX
Allow: INVITE, ACK, CANCEL, OPTIONS, BYE, REFER, SUBSCRIBE, NOTIFY, INFO
Supported: replaces
WWW-Authenticate: Digest algorithm=MD5, realm="fe-c7c5-9o.domain.com", nonce="151e4f60"
Content-Length: 0

Thanks,
Marc


_______________________________________________
SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list
sr-users@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

_______________________________________________
SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list
sr-users@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