27 Jun
2003
27 Jun
'03
9:56 p.m.
I have also had problems with getting the ACK back.
I don't completely understand your configuration, you
must allow for packets going both directions, right?
Here is my config :
route
{
# check to see if the message has been around too long
# probably means that it is looping
#
if (!mf_process_maxfwd_header("10"))
{
log("LOG: Too many hops\n");
sl_send_reply("483","Too Many Hops");
break;
};
#
# make sure the length of the message isn't too long!
#
if (len_gt( max_len ))
{
sl_send_reply("513", "Wow -- Message too large");
break;
};
#
# do the loose-routing thing, this is important!
#
if(loose_route())
{
log(1,"doing top loose route");
t_relay();
break;
};
# this is where I was dropping the ACKS.
# I was simply dropping these, but they must be relayed
# because they can be ACKs
if(!(uri==myself))
{
if(!t_relay())
{
sl_reply_error();
break;
};
break;
};
This gets the ACKs through for me.
By the way, I have this configured with Cisco ATAs, version 2.16.
---greg
I have the same problem and posed it to the group yesterday ([Serusers]
Ignored 200 OK message.) So far the only workaround that I have found is to
use the rules in my gateway to rewrite the dialed digits before sending them
to the PSTN PRI, thus leaving the origianl URI intact for SIP
communications.
One person told me that this is a bug in the Cisco ATA, but it happens on my
IPDialog phones also. It seems to me that the INVITE is being processed by
the SER dial rules and is rewritten, but the ACK is not.
Sean
_______________________________________________
Sean Robertson
NETXUSA
p. 800-289-6389
f. 864-233-4344 "Ask me about Voice over IP."
http://www.netxusa.com/
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alexander Mayrhofer" <axelm(a)nic.at>
To: <serusers(a)lists.iptel.org>
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 12:15 PM
Subject: [Serusers] rewrite & ACK forwarding problem
Hi,
we're running SER together with a PSTN Gateway. Before a call get's
forwarded to the gateway, we are rewriting the request URI to make
rewriting on the GW as simple as possible:
route {
...
strip(3); # +43xxx -> xxx
prefix("0"); # xxx -> 0xxx
rewritehostport(xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx, 5060); # request to gateway
route(1);
break;
...
SIP call flow looks like (record route enabled):
(1) phone -> SER
INVITE sip:*43699xxxxxxxx@nic.at43.at SIP/2.0
(2) SER -> phone
SIP/2.0 100 trying -- your call is important to us
(3) SER -> GW
INVITE sip:0699xxxxxxxx@xx.xx.xx.xx:5060 SIP/2.0
(4) GW -> SER
SIP/2.0 100 Trying
(5) GW -> SER
SIP/2.0 183 Session Progress
(6) SER -> phone
SIP/2.0 183 Session Progress
(7) GW -> SER
SIP/2.0 180 Ringing
(8) SER -> phone
SIP/2.0 180 Ringing
(9) GW -> SER
SIP/2.0 200 OK
Contact: <sip:0699xxxxxxxx@xx.xx.xx.xx:5060>
(10) SER -> phone
SIP/2.0 200 OK
Contact: <sip:0699xxxxxxx@xx.xx.xx.xx:5060>
[ call established, we can talk, but ... ]
(11) phone -> SER
ACK sip:0699xxxxxxxx@xx.xx.xx.xx:5060 SIP/2.0
--> Here starts the problem. That ACK (11) never gets forwarded to the
Gateway, so after a few seconds, the GW starts over at (9). Those three
packets (9-11) repeat a few times until GW runs into a timeout and drops
the call.
I have the impression that SER can't match the packet to the previous
requests because of the rewritten URI. Is that correct?
The only output at debug level 3 is:
Warning: sl_send_reply: I won't send a reply for ACK!!
Is that a routing goof somewhere in our scripts or is that a more
generic problem? Is the problem that the warning indicates somehow
related to the fact that the ACK is not being forwarded?
Help appreciated.
cheers
axelm
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers