23 Jun
2005
23 Jun
'05
8:45 p.m.
Jan,
We experience the same problems over here with some of our clients, only here
some of them are actually on valid IPs (no NAT). Any ideas?
Thnx,
Fernando
On Thursday 23 June 2005 08:44, 'Jan Janak' wrote:
OK, the REGISTER message contains a private IP in the
contact. That
would force SER to rewrite the IP address with the public IP of the NAT
and the user agent is probably unable to match the contact and find out
what the expires value set by the server is. That explains why it works
with Expires: 60 header field parameter but does not work with
;expires=60 contact parameter.
There are two options:
1) Hack -- insert Expires: 50 header field into the reply using
append_to_reply function from textopts module. Note that the value you
insert this way must be lower than the value of expires parameter in the
contact.
2) Use fix_nated_register instead of fix_nated_contact for REGISTER
messages. This function does not rewrite the IP in contact, instead
it would append the public IP and port used by the NAT as a parameter
of Contact header field. The two values will be stored separately in
the user location database. When forwarding a message to the contact,
the Request-URI will contain the private IP of the user agent, but
the message will be sent to the public IP of the NAT (destination set
will be used). This way the Contact in 200 OK reply will be not
modified and the user agent should be able to set the expires value
properly.
Jan.
On 23-06-2005 17:59, Chia Huey Lim wrote:
Sure...
SER:
REGISTER sip:xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.0.4:5060;branch=z9hG4bKd9e688a70
Max-Forwards: 70
Content-Length: 0
To: 5008 <sip:18182002@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx>
From: 5008 <sip:18182002@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx>;tag=1f55b6cd5586c2d
Call-ID: 928d75b5b6c7d128a0ccaf24e5b52c74(a)192.168.0.4
CSeq: 1028949335 REGISTER
Contact: 5008 <sip:18182002@192.168.0.4:5060;user=phone>;expires=60
Allow: NOTIFY
Allow: REFER
Allow: OPTIONS
Allow: INVITE
Allow: ACK
Allow: CANCEL
Allow: BYE
User-Agent: InterEdge-ieta200
ASTERISK:
REGISTER sip:xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.0.4;branch=z9hG4bKf91124aeb
Max-Forwards: 70
Content-Length: 0
To: 603200661 <sip:603200661@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx>
From: 603200661 <sip:603200661@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx>;tag=7f4a78971dd573b
Call-ID: 59a4ee90d5fbe74f8de459fb2506acf0(a)192.168.0.4
CSeq: 937060361 REGISTER
Contact: 603200661 <sip:603200661@192.168.0.4;user=phone>;expires=1200
Allow: NOTIFY
Allow: REFER
Allow: OPTIONS
Allow: INVITE
Allow: ACK
Allow: CANCEL
Allow: BYE
Authorization:Digest
response="869ebcdfd4f83cfd805c0b03e768b9a5",username="603200661",realm="x
xx" ,nonce="297966ac",uri="sip:xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx"
User-Agent: InterEdge-ieta200
Regards,
Chia
-----Original Message-----
From: 'Jan Janak' [mailto:jan@iptel.org]
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 5:44 PM
To: Chia Huey Lim
Cc: 'Juan Carlos Castro y Castro'; serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
Subject: Re: [Serusers] SER losing SIP registrations
Could send me also the REGISTER messages ?
Jan.
On 23-06-2005 17:36, Chia Huey Lim wrote:
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers I am facing the same problem too, one of the UA
that I am testing on
does not re-register itself. It has no problem re-registering itself to
asterisk.
I compared the ethereal trace for the
registration on SER and Asterisk.
And
I found that Asterisk append "Expires:
xxx" above the "Contact: " while
SER
does not. Anything that I can do to append
"Expires: xxx" in the 200 ok
packet that SER is sending out?
Below is the comparison:
SER:
ĸe`SIP/2.0 200 OK
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
192.168.0.4:5060;branch=z9hG4bKef17e9623;rport=32914;received=xxx.xxx.xxx
.xx
x
To: 5008
<sip:18182002@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx>;tag=856642a4d7f9f16db9502202a011388b.db9
a From: 5008 <sip:18182002@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx>;tag=1f55b6cd5586c2d
Call-ID: 928d75b5b6c7d128a0ccaf24e5b52c74(a)192.168.0.4
CSeq: 1028949336 REGISTER
Contact:<sip:18182002@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:32914;user=phone>;expires=60;receiv
ed=
> "sip:xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:32914"
> Server: Sip EXpress router (0.9.0 (i386/linux))
> Content-Length: 0
>
> ASTERISK:
> ÄÄ
> x9SIP/2.0 200 OK
> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
> 192.168.0.4;branch=z9hG4bKf91124aeb;received=xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx;rport=3291
>4 From: 603200661 <sip:603200661@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx>;tag=7f4a78971dd573b
> To: 603200661 <sip:603200661@xxx.xxx.xxxx.xxx>;tag=as4f0c60fe
> Call-ID: 59a4ee90d5fbe74f8de459fb2506acf0(a)xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx
> CSeq: 937060361 REGISTER
> User-Agent: xxx
> Allow: INVITE, ACK, CANCEL, OPTIONS, BYE, REFER
> Expires: 1200
> Contact: <sip:603200661@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx;user=phone>;expires=1200
> Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 04:36:20 GMT
> Content-Length: 0
>
> Thanks.
>
> Regards,
> Chia
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: serusers-bounces(a)iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org] On
> Behalf Of Jan Janak
> Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 4:39 PM
> To: Juan Carlos Castro y Castro
> Cc: serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
> Subject: Re: [Serusers] SER losing SIP registrations
>
> On 22-06-2005 17:57, Juan Carlos Castro y Castro wrote:
> > Our company has a call center implementation on a client with up to
> > 100 support personnel using X-Lite version 1050 softphones running
> > under Windows 98. Until a few days ago, the softphones were logged in
> > directly on our PBXs. Now, they log onto a separate SER 0.8.14 box
> > and the PBXs forward calls to SER. That was needed to unify queue
> > management.
> >
> > It works. But some softphones are being randomly kicked out of SER,
> > it seems SER isn't receiving the refresh REGISTER messages from the
> > softphones. The re-register timeout is set to 500 seconds on the
> > softphones. There's a lot of "removing spare zombie" and
"Binding
> > '<user>','<url>' has expired" messages in
/var/log/messages.
>
> The message means that SER did not receive REGISTER re-fresh and is
> thus removing the contact from the user location database.
>
> Pick one user agent that has this problem and install ngrep monitor
> on the server to monitor all REGISTER messages from that user agent.
> This way you could find out if the problem is in the user agent or
> network (in this case you will not see REGISTER refresh messages on the
> server) or in SER (in that case you will see them but SER probably
> fails to process them).
>
> Also make sure that SER is not configured to shorten the registration
> period. When registrar receives a REGISTER message, it is free to use
> shorter expires value for the Contac than what was suggested by the
> user agent in the request. In this case the real expires value of the
> contact will be in 200 OK and user agents are suppose to pick it up
> from there and update the refresh interval accordingly. This may not
> work in the case when Contact IP address is rewritten by the server
> for the purpose of NAT traversal. In this case the user agent will be
> unable to find its contact (because it has been rewritten) and will
> not update the refresh interval (resulting in expired registrations).
>
> > For now, we're instructing the client to increase the timeout to 10
> > hours on the softphones in which the problem happens most often. I
> > don't know if that's really the right thing to do, I think we should
> > somehow make sure the re-registers are done in a timely fashion and
> > retried, but I could not find ant SER configuration option related to
> > that. What should I do?
>
> You can configure the maximum allowed expires value in SER, if a user
> agent tries to REGISTER a contact with longer expires value than it
> will be automatically updated by registrar to the value of
> max_expires parameter.
>
> There is also min_expires parameter in registrar module but that one
> should not be used because the current implementation violates
> RFC3261.
>
> If you are using any of the two parameter than it might be a good
> idea to retry without them (to see if the problem persists).
>
> Jan.