Re: [SR-Users] ACK / BYE transaction problem

Yes the ip for the [carr] is missing. But I thought, the [gw ] should create the ack based on the transaction and send it to the [carr] My situation Class5 system [c5] àLoadbalancer kamailio (dispatcher module) [lbl] -àgateway kamailio [gw] àcarrier [carr] So who is doing a mistake? The lbl, the gw or even the c5 system? If helpful, I could provide a trace with all the stations in it. Kr, Oli *Von:*sr-users [mailto:sr-users-bounces@lists.sip-router.org] *Im Auftrag von *Francisco Valentin Vinagrero *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 29. Juni 2016 16:17 *An:* Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List &lt;sr-users(a)lists.sip-router.org&gt; *Betreff:* Re: [SR-Users] ACK / BYE transaction problem Your ACK is missing the right IP in the RURI (should be the one in the contact header in the 200 OK) and the Route headers for every Record-Route in the 200 OK, if I understand well your scenario… *From:*sr-users [mailto:sr-users-bounces@lists.sip-router.org] *On Behalf Of *Oliver Roth *Sent:* 29 June 2016 16:04 *To:* Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List &lt;sr-users(a)lists.sip-router.org <mailto:sr-users@lists.sip-router.org>> *Subject:* Re: [SR-Users] ACK / BYE transaction problem I removed the changes for the to header – so it is not touched all the time 200 ok from [carr] SIP/2.0 200 OK From: <sip:41275279225@212.25.7.69>;tag=sc1NXPTEST-4c9b51343502af61 To: <sip:0794567735@212.25.7.70>;tag=snl_0015024070 Call-ID: 5773d0ab9b30-5bau50gxp4en CSeq: 1 INVITE Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 185.49.222.44;branch=z9hG4bKbe7c.0f5ca21e3a66f41694ca709ac28c1192.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 185.49.222.43;branch=z9hG4bKbe7c.a5e4cba8b1d9a4a56d1120d012a06850.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 212.25.7.69:5060;uac=sc1;branch=z9hG4bKsc1NXPTEST-ae749ab817378131 Record-Route: <sip:185.49.222.44;lr=on;did=4b7.9422> Record-Route: <sip:185.49.222.43;lr=on> Contact: <sip:794567735@81.7.235.236:5060;transport=udp> Content-Type: application/sdp Content-Length: 197 Accept-Language: en;q=0.0 Allow: REGISTER, INVITE, ACK, BYE, CANCEL, NOTIFY, REFER, UPDATE Supported: timer Session-Expires: 1800;refresher=uas Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 13:44:20 GMT v=0 o=- 277262053 1 IN IP4 81.7.235.228 s=- c=IN IP4 81.7.235.228 t=0 0 m=audio 24212 RTP/AVP 8 101 a=fmtp:101 0-15 a=rtpmap:101 telephone-event/8000 a=silenceSupp:off - - - - a=ptime:20 ACK from [lbl] to [gw] ACK sip:185.49.222.44;did=4b7.9422;lr=on SIP/2.0 From: <sip:41275279225@212.25.7.69>;tag=sc1NXPTEST-4c9b51343502af61 To: <sip:0794567735@212.25.7.70>;tag=snl_0015024070 Call-ID: 5773d0ab9b30-5bau50gxp4en CSeq: 1 ACK Max-Forwards: 28 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 185.49.222.43;branch=z9hG4bKbe7c.a6f12b66454fbb7b536aa22cef3d568c.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 185.49.222.43;branch=z9hG4bKbe7c.7bc483a166362b13ba3cc40ca60308ea.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 212.25.7.69:5060;branch=z9hG4bKsc1NXPTEST-ae749ab817378131A Content-Length: 0 X-gateway: <null> X-SI: <null> X-gateway: <null> X-SI: <null> Initial Inivte to [gw] from [lbl] INVITE sip:0794567735@185.49.222.43:5060 SIP/2.0 Record-Route: <sip:185.49.222.43;lr=on> From: <sip:0275279225@212.25.7.69>;tag=sc1NXPTEST-4c9b51343502af61 To: <sip:0794567735@212.25.7.70> Call-ID: 5773d0ab9b30-5bau50gxp4en CSeq: 1 INVITE Allow: INVITE, ACK, CANCEL, BYE, OPTIONS Max-Forwards: 29 User-Agent: AareSwitch/6.2.8553 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 185.49.222.43;branch=z9hG4bKbe7c.a5e4cba8b1d9a4a56d1120d012a06850.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 212.25.7.69:5060;uac=sc1;branch=z9hG4bKsc1NXPTEST-ae749ab817378131 Contact: <sip:0275279225@212.25.7.69:5060> P-Asserted-Identity: <sip:0275279225@212.25.7.69> Content-Type: application/sdp Content-Length: 401 Invite sent to [carr] from [gw] INVITE sip:41794567735@81.7.235.236 SIP/2.0 Record-Route: <sip:185.49.222.44;lr=on;did=4b7.9422> Record-Route: <sip:185.49.222.43;lr=on> From: <sip:41275279225@212.25.7.69>;tag=sc1NXPTEST-4c9b51343502af61 To: <sip:0794567735@212.25.7.70> Call-ID: 5773d0ab9b30-5bau50gxp4en CSeq: 1 INVITE Allow: INVITE, ACK, CANCEL, BYE, OPTIONS Max-Forwards: 28 User-Agent: AareSwitch/6.2.8553 Contact: <sip:41279225@212.25.7.69> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 185.49.222.44;branch=z9hG4bKbe7c.0f5ca21e3a66f41694ca709ac28c1192.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 185.49.222.43;branch=z9hG4bKbe7c.a5e4cba8b1d9a4a56d1120d012a06850.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 212.25.7.69:5060;uac=sc1;branch=z9hG4bKsc1NXPTEST-ae749ab817378131 P-Asserted-Identity: <sip:41275279225@212.25.7.69;user=phone> Content-Type: application/sdp *Von:*sr-users [mailto:sr-users-bounces@lists.sip-router.org] *Im Auftrag von *Francisco Valentin Vinagrero *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 29. Juni 2016 16:00 *An:* Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List &lt;sr-users(a)lists.sip-router.org <mailto:sr-users@lists.sip-router.org>> *Betreff:* Re: [SR-Users] ACK / BYE transaction problem Hi, Does the ACK has the correct Router headers and R-URI? Maybe you can share the 200 OK and the ACK headers.. I had a similar issue 3 weeks ago. Cheers, Francisco. *From:*sr-users [mailto:sr-users-bounces@lists.sip-router.org] *On Behalf Of *Oliver Roth *Sent:* 29 June 2016 15:55 *To:* sr-users(a)lists.sip-router.org <mailto:sr-users@lists.sip-router.org> *Subject:* [SR-Users] ACK / BYE transaction problem Hi all Follow scenario Class5 system [c5] àLoadbalancer kamailio (dispatcher module) [lbl] -àgateway kamailio [gw] àcarrier [carr] I get Invites from [c5] with Request ,To, from, contact, pid in national format 0794445566 [lbl] dispatches this to [gw] For the [carr] I need international format. So doing these transactions in [gw] And sending to [carr] in international format Request, to, from, contact, … => 417794445566 Everything ok Then I get a 100, 183 and even 200 from [carr] Ack is coming from [c5] to [lbl] and [gw] – but then it stocks The ACK is not sent to the [carr] I kamailio log I see DEBUG: RFC3261 transaction matching failed DEBUG: t_lookup_request: no transaction found So for me, the ACK cannot be assigned to a transaction and gets discarded by if ( is_method("ACK") ) { xlog(,"L_INFO", "WITHINDLG ACK - not loose route\n"); if ( t_check_trans() ) { xlog(,"L_INFO", "WITHINDLG ACK - t_check_trans() \n"); # no loose-route, but stateful ACK; # must be an ACK after a 487 # or e.g. 404 from upstream server t_relay(); exit; } else { xlog(,"L_INFO", "WITHINDLG ACK - not t_check_trans() DISCARD!!\n"); # ACK without matching transaction ... ignore and discard route(NATMANAGE); #t_relay(); #exit; Any idea? Problem with modifying the sip tags? Or problem with the dialog? Thanks for helping OIi _______________________________________________ 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