Hi,
why should Kamailio add a route for himself to an outbound request? 172.30.105.18 is obviously the proxy itself; so adding the Route-Header makes no sense.... (at least from a SIP-Perspective).
Record-Route: sip:172.30.105.18;lr=on;ftag=ervXH3ycHcgpK;vsf=AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA--;proxy_media=yes;dlgcor=fa8.9ea
03:27:37.464071 IP 172.30.105.18.5060 > 172.30.105.20.5060: SIP, length: 367
Or am i missing something here?
Kind regards, Carsten
2013/12/11 Alex Balashov abalashov@evaristesys.com:
I just tested this with dialog timeout and can confirm that there are no Route headers in the locally generated BYEs.
The Record-Route set for the dialog is:
Record-Route: sip:172.30.105.18;lr=on;ftag=ervXH3ycHcgpK;vsf=AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA--;proxy_media=yes;dlgcor=fa8.9ea
The BYEs from Kamailio don't have a Route header at all. Just these:
03:27:37.464071 IP 172.30.105.18.5060 > 172.30.105.20.5060: SIP, length: 367 E.......@._'.4..?..U.....w^.BYE sip:mod_sofia@172.30.105.20:5060 SIP/2.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 172.30.105.18;branch=z9hG4bK6e86.3c0a9a04000000000000000000000000.0 To: sip:6785551212@172.30.105.20;tag=ervXH3ycHcgpK From: sip:4045551212@172.30.105.18;tag=SD7hk6c99-ac3f4687+1+337b0015+5485357b CSeq: 1 BYE Call-ID: 34fdb244-dce1-1231-ee8e-00163e6490b7 Content-Length: 0 Max-Forwards: 70
Of course, that doesn't stop them from working.
-- Alex
On 12/11/2013 02:50 AM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
Hello,
can you share the database record or kamctl mi dlg_list for such call? It helps to see if record route values are stored properly in first place.
Cheers, Daniel
On 05/12/13 14:47, Efelin Novak wrote:
Hi,
I locally generate BYE using dlg_end_dlg. When I want to end a call that is "transport layer" bridged, the BYE is not sent to first hop in route_set but directly to the endpoint. In such BYE there are no Route headers. In non-bridging calls Routes are correctly placed and the message is routed to the first "hop".
When the error happens, this is written to a log:
WARNING: rr [loose.c:821]: after_loose(): no socket found for match second RR
Here ([SR-Users] no socket found for match second RR) I have read this is only a warning, but in my configuration it seriously influences the message routing.
My setup is
phone1(192.168.10.3) <--TCP--> kamailio1(192.168.10.2) <--UDP--> kamailio2(192.168.5.3) <--UDP--> phone2
On kamailio1 I generate dlg_end_dlg and the BYE is sent to phone1 and phone2 directly.
I'm using Kamailio 4.0.4 on Debian machines.
How can I make the Kamailio1 to send the BYE to kamailio2 in the transport layer bridging scenario? Do I have some misconfiguration or this is not a correct behaviour?
Thanks for answer
Efelin
SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list sr-users@lists.sip-router.org http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
-- Daniel-Constantin Mierla -http://www.asipto.com http://twitter.com/#!/miconda -http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list sr-users@lists.sip-router.org http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
-- Alex Balashov - Principal Evariste Systems LLC 235 E Ponce de Leon Ave Suite 106 Decatur, GA 30030 United States Tel: +1-678-954-0670 Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/, http://www.alexbalashov.com/
SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list sr-users@lists.sip-router.org http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users