Well you have to find what is the path the request follows. There is tool on the CVS which shows all possible paths of your route blocks...
Or take if from the other side, all places you have sl_reply(404,"user not found") (or t_reply) change the text so it will be unique and you can see which part returned that status.
One more hint, your request is INVITE sip:10.25.119.155:5060 and this does NOT represent any single user, i'm sure, so you won't find it in user location.
If you would like to use the To header, I'd suggest to switch to the current CVS HEAD version, which has a lot of functions and features you might like to use (e.g. lookup_user based on the to uri :-).
Michal
On Mon, 2006-11-06 at 15:09 +0100, Kamal.Mann@t-systems.com wrote:
Hi Michal After changes in ser.cfg(entered ip of SER in domain table) now its sending 404-user not found. One more thing WakeUpService URI is not provisioned in ser database cause its application URI. Do we need to put it into subscriber table??
Regards Kamal Mann
-----Original Message----- From: serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org] On Behalf Of Michal Matyska Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 3:43 PM To: Mann, Kamal Cc: serusers@lists.iptel.org Subject: RE: [serusers]: trusted table(permissions module)
So if this is still current part of your ser.cfg, I might see the reason....
The is_uri_host_local uses domain table to decide what is local and what not; opposed to test uri==myself which treats local IP add reverse name and alias=xxx statement to decide what is local.
So I think, the test just after lookup("aliases") fails and then route[4] (NAT) and route[1] (relay to RURI) are called.....
You can easily check adding some log("xxx") into the code.
To cure that, you should either switch the test to uri!=myself or add IP address of the ser server into domain table (but still there are few tests uri==myslf elsewhere in the ser.cfg).
Michal
route[3] { # ---------------------------------------------------------- # INVITE Message Handler # ----------------------------------------------------------
if (!allow_trusted()) { ... };
if (uri=~"^sip:1[0-9]{10}@") { strip(1); }; lookup("aliases"); if (!is_uri_host_local()) # <<< change to uri!=myself { log("AS - prove of idead "); # <<< add to prove idea route(4); route(1); break; };
....
}
Michal
On Mon, 2006-11-06 at 10:43 +0100, Kamal.Mann@t-systems.com wrote:
Hi All Please find n/w packet capture enclosed. You are right Michal, SER forwarding packets to itself. Now what I need to do? Please help me
out
guys.
Thanks in anticipation Kamal Mann
-----Original Message----- From: Michal Matyska [mailto:michal@iptel.org] Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 2:39 PM To: serusers@lists.iptel.org Subject: Re: [serusers]: trusted table(permissions module)
Plase do capture on the SER server on linux cooked interface called "any", I suspect that your ser is forwarding the request to itself and at the moment it won't catch using the trusted table.
More comments inline.
On Mon, 2006-11-06 at 14:47 +0700, Andrey Kuprianov wrote:
Hi,
See inline
On 11/6/06, Kamal.Mann@t-systems.com Kamal.Mann@t-systems.com
wrote:
Hi Andrey On SIP AS side sip stack is running on port 5060, then this packet
send
to Application running over on top of it. Is their any issue with
this
scenario?
I think there might be... I just think there should be some consistency between your SIP and UDP/TCP packets. If UDP source port is 4141, for example, then your Contact header (and From header
too),
should have this port. If someone else has some good ideas, plz, comment.
What Andrey describes is symetric signalling, what we see in the
capture
is asymetric signalling.... it is not the problem. It is possible (not when you are behind NAT) to use 5060 for receiving incoming requests
and
responses and use other ports to send requests.
In SIP packet its 5060 only. Port is changed only in UDP/TCP
packets.
But I think their shouldn't be anything wrong with this cause SIP
Stack
utilizes only sip packets (inside of UDP). And SER is replying to
it.
Your ethereal traces on SER side show 100 and 407 responses are
marked
as black and red color (i use ethereal 0.99.x). That means something is wrong.
Due to UDP checksum not beeing correct.
Michal
Regards Kamal Mann
Regards,
Andrey.-----Original Message----- From: Andrey Kuprianov [mailto:andrey.kouprianov@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 11:52 AM To: serusers@iptel.org Subject: Re: [serusers]: trusted table(permissions module)
Hi Kamal,
I noticed one strange thing in your traces. INVITE from SIP-AS is
sent
from port 4141 (!) to port 5060, but 100 and 407 response from SER
is
sent back to port 5060 (not port 4141)! Can you, please, explain
why?
Andrey.
On 11/6/06, Kamal.Mann@t-systems.com Kamal.Mann@t-systems.com
wrote:
Hi Andrey Please find ethereal packet capture enclosed. SER n/w dump is
'SER_SERVER' and SIP_AS n/w dump is 'SAS_SERVER'.
SER IP = 10.25.119.155 SIP AS IP = 10.25.119.156 To URI is registered at SER end (dilip) From URI is Application Name (example) and neither created nor
registered (WakeUpService) with SER.
Thanks in anticipation Kamal Mann
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
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