Can you paste here the from tag or cseq for the
dialog you are referring
to? Because the number of frames are not matching my pcap viewer.
Send also the db dump, they should reveal if something is broken there.
Cheers,
Daniel
On 26.04.17 14:46, Pete Kelly wrote:
Ah I see why it is confusing
This setup maintains a Call-ID through an SBC downstream, so the
INVITE's you see have the same Call-ID but they have a different
fromtag/cseq, Wireshark shows them all as one call which is annoying when
looking at the viewer!
If you check the first call only between 252.70 and 252.75 you will see
INVITE (frame 4), 200OK (frame 16) with lots of RR headers.
The ACK generated by topos (frame 21) only contains 1 Route header, it
should contain more so the request can hop through the proxy chain as shown
in frame 16.
I see the example from Sergey is working, but there is only 1 RR header
in this example - as you can see from my example the topos module uses the
first RR header but ignores the other 5.
I have the DB dump and logfiles from this call too if useful.
Pete
On 26 April 2017 at 12:41, Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
As I could notice upon a quick look, there seems
to be two calls -- two
INVITE requests having same call id but different cseq. Can you confirm
this is the case? Because the capture doesn't seem to have all the
incoming/outgoing messages, some are missing.
Cheers,
Daniel
On 26.04.17 12:59, Sergey Basov wrote:
> You give to us very hard callflow...
>
> Without any pauses between responces..
>
> Some requests go through 127.0.0.1... But responces from 127.0.0.1
not present.
>
> There are peers from which invites not present in dump. I can not see
> ful path of the initial Invite, but there is responses.
>
> I will send dump in next email directly.
> --
> Best regards,
> Sergey Basov e-mail: sergey.v.basov(a)gmail.com
>
>
> 2017-04-26 11:01 GMT+03:00 Pete Kelly <pkelly(a)gmail.com>om>:
>> Attached is the pcap from latest nightly.
>>
>> As you can see (frame 21) the ACK is incorrect, I believe it should
specify
>> all the hops from the 200OK (frame 16) so that the hop by hop ACK
can be
>> routed via the proxy chain.
>>
>> topoh module works fine.
>>
>> Pete
>>
>> On 26 April 2017 at 05:18, Sergey Basov <sergey.v.basov(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
>>> I dont know how nightly builds are done.
>>>
>>> Just try with latest 5.0.1 nightly and send new dump.
>>>
>>> As I understud topos module done to remove record-route headers to
hide
>>> topology... Am I wright, Daniel?
>>>
>>> And try to disable topos module and enable topoh module. Will it
all work
>>> as you expecrs?
>>>
>>> --
>>> WBR
>>> Sergey Basov
>>>
>>> 25 апр. 2017 г. 11:31 PM пользователь "Pete Kelly" <
pkelly(a)gmail.com>
>>> написал:
>>>
>>>> I have tried with 5.0.1 from today (25th April).
>>>>
>>>> Are you saying build for 26th will have some fixes?
>>>>
>>>> On 25 April 2017 at 18:59, Sergey Basov
<sergey.v.basov(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>>> Actualy latest fixes to 180/183/200, ACK and memory leak was
pushed to
>>>>> 5.0 and master branch.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, please try with latest 5.0.1 nightly.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> WBR
>>>>> Sergey Basov
>>>>>
>>>>> 25 апр. 2017 г. 8:55 PM пользователь "Pete Kelly" <
pkelly(a)gmail.com>
>>>>> написал:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Call is with sipp but first goes through another SBC to clean
up
the
>>>>>> SIP (in case of problems with sipp via headers etc).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The traces I've done are actually with 4.4.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Will they be OK or would you prefer 5.0.1? The problem is
exactly the
>>>>>> same on both.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 25 April 2017 at 16:25, Sergey Basov <
sergey.v.basov(a)gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Can you send dump of the call with kamailio 5.0.1 nightly?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And does you make call using sipp?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> WBR
>>>>>>> Sergey Basov
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 25 апр. 2017 г. 5:57 PM пользователь "Pete Kelly"
<
pkelly(a)gmail.com>
>>>>>>> написал:
>>>>>>>> Looks like from last night:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 5.0.1+0~20170425013247.36+trusty
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 25 April 2017 at 15:42, Daniel-Constantin Mierla
>>>>>>>> <miconda(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> to be sure, it is 5.0.1 build from last night or
quite
recent? There
>>>>>>>>> were some fixes in the past days to topos module.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>> Daniel
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 25.04.17 15:59, Pete Kelly wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi Daniel
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sorry for the delayed response to this, the ACK is
for a
200OK yes
>>>>>>>>> and the problem still persists in latest 4.4 and the
5.0.1
nightly build.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I have all DB entries/kam logs/pcap files.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you check the attached pcap, 192.168.70.70 and
192.168.252.70 are
>>>>>>>>> the same instance of Kamailio, it is being used to
bridge the
2 networks.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Frame 34 shows the 200OK with lots of Record-Route
etc, and
frame 35
>>>>>>>>> shows topos in action.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> However the ACK that is relayed in Frame 38 seems to
be
missing all
>>>>>>>>> the Route information that was supplied in the
200OK, this
causes the ACK to
>>>>>>>>> be relayed directly to the Contact, breaking the
proxy chain.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Pete
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 22 February 2017 at 18:31, Daniel-Constantin
Mierla
>>>>>>>>> <miconda(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> is the ACK for 200ok? Or an ack for a negative
response?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Can you get a pcap for such situation with all
messages
related to
>>>>>>>>>> the call?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>> Daniel
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 22/02/2017 17:20, Pete Kelly wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I am using the topos module when bridging 2
networks with
Kamailio.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The INVITE/200OK part of the transaction is
working fine
(i.e. the
>>>>>>>>>> Contact on both sides matches correctly the
corresponding
network).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> However when the ACK is sent into Kamailio,
instead of
realising
>>>>>>>>>> the next hop is myself and skipping it, Kamailio
is sending
the ACK directly
>>>>>>>>>> to itself as a packet, causing the call setup to
break.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Does anyone have any advice for this situation?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> 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-user
s
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Daniel-Constantin Mierla
>>>>>>>>>>
www.twitter.com/miconda --
www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
>>>>>>>>>> Kamailio Advanced Training - Mar 6-8 (Europe)
and Mar 20-22
(USA) -
>>>>>>>>>>
www.asipto.com
>>>>>>>>>> Kamailio World Conference - May 8-10, 2017 -
www.kamailioworld.com
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Daniel-Constantin Mierla
>>>>>>>>>
www.twitter.com/miconda --
www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
>>>>>>>>> Kamailio Advanced Training - May 22-24 (USA) -
www.asipto.com
>>>>>>>>> Kamailio World Conference - May 8-10, 2017 -
www.kamailioworld.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
>>>>>>>> sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org
>>>>>>>>
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
>>>>>>>>
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
www.twitter.com/miconda --
www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
Kamailio Advanced Training - May 22-24 (USA) -
www.asipto.com
Kamailio World Conference - May 8-10, 2017 -
www.kamailioworld.com