20 Apr
2007
20 Apr
'07
8:12 a.m.
Klaus Darilion wrote:
Hm. Which part of standard is breakup by this rewriting?
Victor Gamov wrote:
fix_nated_contact() does not work correctly (I try it some times ago for
1.1.0). In this scenario it changes Term IP=192.168.100.77 with NAT
IP=Y.Y.Y.Y and NAT port=60767. So when request sending to Term then
Proxy rewrite RURI to termuser@192.168.100.77:60767 and send it to
Y.Y.Y.Y:60767
NAT send UDP-packet to Term 192.168.100.77 port 5060 (it's known because
NAT logic) and Term will reply "No such transaction" or "No such user"
(sorry I don't remember it now) because Term really don't know anything
about RURI termuser@192.168.100.77:60767
And I use my own transformation for some reasons else.
Hi gentlemen!
Sorry for my perseverance but I'll try to ask my question one more time.
I have following SIP-network configuration
Term=192.168.100.77 <-> NAT=Y.Y.Y.Y <-> OpenSER=X.X.X.X <-> GW=Z.Z.Z.Z
Term uses X.X.X.X as registrar and outbound proxy. It registered on
OpenSER as "vit-horosho(a)X.X.X.X".X.X". GW is gateway connected to POTS.
Then I make call from Term to POTS number 74951000000.
'ngrep SIP port 5060' output from OpenSER machine followed (I strip
some unimportant info from requests. My comments before requests)
Initial request from Term comes to OpenSER:
U Y.Y.Y.Y:60767 -> X.X.X.X:5060
INVITE sip:74951000000@X.X.X.X:5060 SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
192.168.100.77:5060;branch=z9hG4bK_00179A52BC45_T63F7A22E
Session-Expires: 1800
From: "Vit-Horosho" <sip:vit-horosho@X.X.X.X>;
tag=00179A52BC45_T1011336699
To: <sip:74951000000@X.X.X.X:5060>
Call-ID: CALL_ID4_00179A52BC45_T397365265(a)192.168.100.77
CSeq: 397703138 INVITE
Contact: <sip:vit-horosho@192.168.100.77:5060>
OK. OpenSER send prov. reply to Term:
U X.X.X.X:5060 -> Y.Y.Y.Y:60767
SIP/2.0 100 Giving a try
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
192.168.100.77:5060;branch=z9hG4bK_00179A52BC45_T63F7A22E;
rport=60767;received=Y.Y.Y.Y
From: "Vit-Horosho" <sip:vit-horosho@X.X.X.X>;
tag=00179A52BC45_T1011336699
To: <sip:74951000000@X.X.X.X:5060>
Call-ID: CALL_ID4_00179A52BC45_T397365265(a)192.168.100.77
CSeq: 397703138 INVITE
Content-Length: 0
Then I make my own transformations on Contact: header
Why are you replacing the Contact with the IP address of the proxy?
There is no need to do that. If you want NAT traversal use
fix_nated_contact(). and OpenSER resend
sorry for confusing -- it may be local generated 100.
request to GW. OpenSER adds Record-Route: header
into request also.
U X.X.X.X:5060 -> Z.Z.Z.Z:5060
INVITE sip:74951000000@Z.Z.Z.Z;user=phone SIP/2.0
Record-Route: <sip:X.X.X.X;lr=on;
ftag=00179A52BC45_T1011336699>
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP X.X.X.X;branch=z9hG4bK7a3.0ae7d67.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.100.77:5060;rport=60767;received=
Y.Y.Y.Y;branch=z9hG4bK_00179A52BC45_T63F7A22E
Session-Expires: 1800
From: "Vit-Horosho" <sip:vit-horosho@80.23 7.15.3>;
tag=00179A52BC45_T1011336699
To: <sip:74951000000@X.X.X.X:5060>
Call-ID: CALL_ID4_00179A52BC45_T397365265@
192.168.100.77
CSeq: 397703138 INVITE
Contact: <sip:vit-horosho@X.X.X.X;nat=yes>
OK. GW send prov. reply to OpenSER
U Z.Z.Z.Z:5060 -> X.X.X.X:5060
SIP/2.0 100 Trying
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP X.X.X.X;branch=z9hG4bK7a3.0ae7d67.0,SIP/2.0/UDP
192.168.100.77:5060;rport=60767
;received=Y.Y.Y.Y;branch=z9hG4bK_00179A52BC45_T63F7A22E
From: "Vit-Horosho" <sip:vit-horosho@X.X.X.X>;
tag=00179A52BC45_T1011336699
To: <sip:74951000000@X.X.X.X:5060>;tag=54E1EED8-D8E
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 18:37:57 GMT
Call-ID: CALL_ID4_00179A52BC45_T397365265(a)192.168.100.77
CSeq: 397703138 INVITE
OK. OpenSER resend prov. reply to Term
Why does openser resend the 100? I have never seen this before. U X.X.X.X:5060
-> Y.Y.Y.Y:60767
SIP/2.0 100 Giving a try
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
192.168.100.77:5060;branch=z9hG4bK_00179A52BC45_T63F7A22E;
rport=60767;received=Y.Y.Y.Y
From: "Vit-Horosho" <sip:vit-horosho@X.X.X.X>;
tag=00179A52BC45_T1011336699
To: <sip:74951000000@X.X.X.X:5060>
Call-ID: CALL_ID4_00179A52BC45_T397365265(a)192.168.100.77
CSeq: 397703138 INVITE
GW send 183 to OpenSER. Record-Route: header present in this reply.
U Z.Z.Z.Z:5060 -> X.X.X.X:5060
SIP/2.0 183 Session Progress
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP X.X.X.X;branch=z9hG4bK7a3.0ae7d67.0,SIP/2.0/UDP
192.168.100.77:5060;rport=60767;received=Y.Y.Y.Y;
branch=z9hG4bK_00179A52BC45_T63F7A22E
From: "Vit-Horosho" <sip:vit-horosho@X.X.X.X>;
tag=00179A52BC45_T1011336699
To: <sip:74951000000@X.X.X.X:5060>;tag=54E1EED8-D8E
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 18:37:58 GMT
Call-ID: CALL_ID4_00179A52BC45_T397365265(a)192.168.100.77
CSeq: 397703138 INVITE
RSeq: 3722
Contact: <sip:74951000000@Z.Z.Z.Z:5060>
Record-Route: <sip:X.X.X.X;lr=on;ftag=00179A52BC45_T1011336699>
OpenSER make my own transformation on Contact: header
This is the root of your problem. By rewriting the Contact header with
the IP address of the proxy you are not standard conform. Thus, the
loose routing of in-dialog messages can not work anymore, as the Contact
must be the address of the client, not the proxy.
where is differences between Proxy and Terminal using one IP (but may be
different UDP ports) and Contact: header rewrited by smart proxy which
know what it will be done when found RURI with values equal this Contact?
Which logic used by loose_route() to treat RURI as local RURI?
In this scenario why PRACK RURI
sip:74951000000@X.X.X.X:5060;nat=yes
don't treat as resource owned by this proxy?
Stop manipulating the Contact header and you will see
that loose routing
will work fine.
:-)
I stop loose_route() and everything works fine for our SIP-network. If
something come wrong -- I'll try to find new solutions for new problems.
Now I want to understand logic only.
I have only one idea -- call loose_route() after all my own
transformations and check what it will be do. But if loose_route() uses
original (not rewrited) requests so nothing to changes.
Sorry to trouble you
--
CU,
Victor Gamov