Hi Victor,
I tested 5.7.6 and 5.8.3 and got the same results. At the moment request_route is very simple.
request_route { xlog("L_INFO", ">> $ru from $fu\n");
route(REQINIT);
force_rport();
if(!ds_is_from_list()) { if( !loose_route() ) { if( !ds_select_dst(DEFAULT_ROUTE, "1") ) { drop(); } }
if (nat_uac_test("19")) { if (method=="REGISTER") { fix_nated_register(); } else { fix_nated_contact(); } }
add_path_received(); } record_route(); forward(); }
This is the logs of ack
DEBUG: [1 90333697 ACK ...] <core> [core/receive.c:263]: ksr_evrt_pre_routing(): event route core:pre-routing not defined DEBUG: [1 90333697 ACK ...] <core> [core/receive.c:474]: receive_msg(): preparing to run routing scripts... DEBUG: [1 90333697 ACK ...] sl [sl_funcs.c:455]: sl_filter_ACK(): too late to be a local ACK! [137B blob data] [134B blob data] ERROR: [1 90333697 ACK ...] pv [pv_core.c:261]: pv_get_ruri(): failed to parse the R-URI DEBUG: [1 90333697 ACK ...] <core> [core/parser/parse_addr_spec.c:185]: parse_to_param(): add param: tag=BrQ6ZyDyQHQmN DEBUG: [1 90333697 ACK ...] <core> [core/parser/parse_addr_spec.c:904]: parse_addr_spec(): end of header reached, state=29
Could this be a bug or did I miss something?
On Wed, Oct 23, 2024 at 4:47 PM Victor Seva via sr-users < sr-users@lists.kamailio.org> wrote:
Hi,
I would suggest to try a more recent Kamailio version first.
On 23/10/24 14:21, Ale via sr-users wrote:
Hi All,
I think I have a problem with topoh, but I can't identify it.
Kamailio 5.6.6, used as a stateless proxy, receives a 487 from a phone
and propagates it correctly.
Next comes the ack that should be forwarded back to the phone, but
instead it doesn't forward it and produces the following error "pv_get_ruri(): failed to parse the R-URI"
The error is generated by xlog("...$ru from $fu...\n"") as first line of
request_route.
If I disable topoh everything works perfectly.Topoh is only configured
with mask_key only.
Furthermore, not all phones generate this problem, at the moment there
are some snoms.
ACK sip:user@phone_ip:2048;line=kkqgarrj SIP/2.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
proxy_sip_ip;branch=z9hG4bK2ec.e7126a3134bef9d974f57dd43ebd4ea2.0
Route: sip:kamailio_ip:5060;lr;received=sip:phone_ip:2048 Max-Forwards: 66 From: <sip:111111111@sip.example.com <mailto:
sip%3A111111111@sip.example.com>>;tag=pDc1BQ0B57Ujj
To: <sip:user@sip.example.com <mailto:sip%3Auser@sip.example.com
;tag=vslvowy4y2
Call-ID: 40a6c905-c0c8-4c20-b3f7-397b3fce58b6 CSeq: 90285584 ACK Content Length: 0
There is no difference between the ACK of the snom and other phones that
work.
The only difference I noticed is that the snom 487 contains Contact
field in the header.
Any suggestions? Thank you
--
| ,''`. Victor Seva | | : :' : linuxmaniac@torreviejawireless.org | | `. `' PGP: 8F19 CADC D42A 42D4 5563 730C 51A0 9B18 CF5A 5068 | | `- Debian Developer |
Kamailio - Users Mailing List - Non Commercial Discussions To unsubscribe send an email to sr-users-leave@lists.kamailio.org Important: keep the mailing list in the recipients, do not reply only to the sender! Edit mailing list options or unsubscribe: