28 Nov
2013
28 Nov
'13
11:58 a.m.
Hi,
1. After adding t_newtran() as shown below, some how this got fixed i.e.
ACK got routed.
However, we are disputed in considering t_newtran() to have caused the fix.
if (is_method("ACK")) {
if (t_check_trans()) {
t_relay();
exit;
} else {
* t_newtran(); #<<<<NEW
ADD>>>>*
exit;
}
2. Is there a frequently used tool remove the private info. from the snoop
traces before sending in as debug info.
One way to remove the info, is to convert snoop to text and then replace
all IPs and passwords using sed but I need something less time consuming.
Br
Adnan
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 11:30 PM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla <
miconda(a)gmail.com> wrote:
For further clarification, the Contact header is not
relevant at all (so
not used) for routing current request (no matter is ACK or something else).
No Contact never results in misrouting. As Alex pointed, only a full sip
trace can reveal the problem.
Cheers,
Daniel
On 11/27/13 8:31 PM, Alex Balashov wrote:
The only way to diagnose this is to get a full packet capture. In all
likelihood, there is a problem with the ACK. 4.0 does not, in principle,
mishandle ACKs, no, but loose-routing and NAT problems related to their
handling are not uncommon.
Adnan <112linuxstockholm(a)gmail.com> <112linuxstockholm(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
We are migrating from our openser 1.4 to kamailio 4.0.3 and have run
into a couple of issues. One of them is described below and we need to know
if it is a known bug or not.
Kamailio receives an INVITE from a gateway and finally responds with
200 OK. Then an ACK is generated by the gateway towards the Kamailio that
some how does not get relayed to the next hop.
The only special aspect here is that the ACK does not contain a Contact
header. Is that something that could confuse kamailio and make it unable to
relay?
According to SIP RFC, a contact header in ACK is not a must have. Our
case is the one where ACK is sent by the UAC after receiving a 200 OK
final response. Everything else about the ACK looks OK e.g. ACK has a
branch different from the the branch value in the UAC INVITE.
Is it a a known bug in 4.0.3?
In the configuration, we handle ACK as below:
if (is_method("ACK")) {
if (t_check_trans()) {
t_relay();
exit;
} else {
exit;
}
Br
Adnan
------------------------------
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
--
Sent from my mobile, and thus lacking in the refinement one might expect
from a fully fledged keyboard.
Alex Balashov - Principal
Evariste Systems LLC
235 E Ponce de Leon Ave
Suite 106
Decatur, GA 30030
United States
Tel: +1-678-954-0671
Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/, http://www.alexbalashov.com
_______________________________________________
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 Mierla - http://www.asipto.comhttp://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