14 Jul
2015
14 Jul
'15
2:02 p.m.
Hi Daniel,
this is the ACK received on Kamailio:
#
U 172.26.130.235:44435 -> 192.168.0.245:5060
ACK sip:7240F8EF-55A4D642000CBC22-8A135700@172.16.0.21;transport=udp SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
172.26.130.235:44435;branch=z9hG4bK-d8754z-1cd3a01fa9171649-1---d8754z-
Max-Forwards: 70
Route: <sip:192.168.0.245;lr>
Route: <sip:0000000011@192.168.0.101;transport=udp;pgw-call=call-28d2e>
Contact: <sip:0000000010@172.26.130.235:44435;transport=UDP>
To: <sip:0000000011@192.168.0.245;transport=UDP>;tag=516145211
From: <sip:0000000010@192.168.0.245;transport=UDP>;tag=a56ac352
Call-ID: NGU5YmUzMGYwM2RmMzc0YTQyNDRmZWZlOWJmMTA0ZjY.
CSeq: 2 ACK
Proxy-Authorization: Digest
username="0000000010",realm="192.168.0.245",nonce="VaTXblWk1kKUxIMJBdWbpRBBCP850QVR",uri="sip:0000000011@192.168.0.245;transport=UDP",response="1daf03c97b8a12e0154d463f543e5592",algorithm=MD5
User-Agent: Z 3.6.25251 r25476
Content-Length: 0
and this the ACK forwarded by Kamailio to P2
#
U 192.168.0.245:5060 -> 192.168.0.101:5060
ACK sip:7240F8EF-55A4D642000CBC22-8A135700@172.16.0.21;transport=udp SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
192.168.0.245;branch=z9hG4bKa252.cc67d8b538d8ad5c01c3e75d472653ec.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
172.26.130.235:44435;branch=z9hG4bK-d8754z-1cd3a01fa9171649-1---d8754z-
Max-Forwards: 69
Route: <sip:0000000011@192.168.0.101;transport=udp;pgw-call=call-28d2e>
Contact: <sip:0000000010@172.26.130.235:44435;transport=UDP>
To: <sip:0000000011@192.168.0.245;transport=UDP>;tag=516145211
From: <sip:0000000010@192.168.0.245;transport=UDP>;tag=a56ac352
Call-ID: NGU5YmUzMGYwM2RmMzc0YTQyNDRmZWZlOWJmMTA0ZjY.
CSeq: 2 ACK
Proxy-Authorization: Digest
username="0000000010",realm="192.168.0.245",nonce="VaTXblWk1kKUxIMJBdWbpRBBCP850QVR",uri="sip:0000000011@192.168.0.245;transport=UDP",response="1daf03c97b8a12e0154d463f543e5592",algorithm=MD5
User-Agent: Z 3.6.25251 r25476
Content-Length: 0
Kamailio considers P2 a loose router so the R-URI is not changed.
Thanks.
Regards.
Antonio
Il 14/07/2015 12:28, Daniel-Constantin Mierla ha scritto:
Hello,
what is the request URI? It might be better to just paste here the full
ACK message.
Cheers,
Daniel
On 14/07/15 12:25, Antonio Reale wrote:
> Sorry,
> here's the Route HF present in the ACK received from U1:
>
> Route: <sip:192.168.0.245;lr>
> Route: <sip:0000000011@192.168.0.101;transport=udp;pgw-call=call-28d2e>
>
> Regards.
>
> Antonio
>
>
>
> Il 14/07/2015 12:09, Antonio Reale ha scritto:
>> Hi all,
>> I have the following scenario:
>> U1 (caller) ---> P1 (192.168.0.245, kamailio 4.3, loose-router) ---->
>> P2 ----> (192.168.0.101, strict router) ----> .... ----> U2 (called)
>>
>> When U2 answers the call, at P1 arrives the 200 OK with:
>> Record-Route:
>> <sip:0000000011@192.168.0.101;transport=udp;pgw-call=call-28d2e>
>> Record-Route: <sip:192.168.0.245;lr=on>
>>
>> The problem is that the ACK from U1 is forwarded from kamailio to P2,
>> as if P2 is a loose router. P2 drops the ACK message.
>>
>> From kamailio logs I see:
>> Jul 14 10:07:44 P1 /usr/sbin/kamailio[15908]: DEBUG: rr [loose.c:88]:
>> is_preloaded(): is_preloaded: No
>> Jul 14 10:07:44 P1 /usr/sbin/kamailio[15908]: DEBUG: rr
>> [loose.c:783]: after_loose(): Topmost route URI:
>> 'sip:192.168.0.245;lr=on' is me
>> Jul 14 10:07:44 P1 /usr/sbin/kamailio[15908]: DEBUG: rr
>> [loose.c:869]: after_loose(): URI to be processed:
>> 'sip:0000000011@192.168.0.101;transport=udp;pgw-call=call-289ce'
>> Jul 14 10:07:44 P1 /usr/sbin/kamailio[15908]: DEBUG: rr
>> [loose.c:878]: after_loose(): Next URI is a loose router
>>
>> Why after_loose function considers the next URI a loose router? The
>> Route HF in the ACK with the URI of the next hop does not contain ;lr .
>> It seems that the function is_strict fails detecting the strict router.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Regards.
>>
>> Antonio
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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