15 Jul
2004
15 Jul
'04
6:40 p.m.
Ok, thanks Andrei !!! Cisco anounce the loose routing implementation in the
release notes of v3.1.1 of ATA firmware.
I must open a case to solve this bug (take Request-URI from Contact:) for
next releases.
Thanks.
Ezequiel Colombo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul" <pelinescu-onciul(a)fokus.fraunhofer.de>
To: "Ezequiel Colombo" <ecolombo(a)arcotel.net>
Cc: <serusers(a)lists.iptel.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2004 1:35 PM
Subject: Re: [Serusers] ATA186 v3.1.1 LooseRoute logic
the U2
On Jul 15, 2004 at 13:12, Ezequiel Colombo
<ecolombo(a)arcotel.net> wrote:
> I are testing the last (v3.1.1) version of SIP firmware for Cisco ATA186
and
> see some
> bug or misimplementation of loose routing logic. I want known if my
> interpretation of
> the loose routing are correct.
>
> The test scenario is:
>
> U1(ATA186) -- callto -- U2(X-Lite)
>
> U1 = 200.80.35.6:25263
> SER= 200.80.35.17:5060
> U2 = 200.80.35.6:26198
>
> After the answer (200 OK) from X-Lite the Cisco ATA 186 send a
different
> ACK message with version 3.1.0 and 3.1.0
firmware. The ACK sent by
version
> 3.1.1 never reack X-Lite causing it to re-send
the 200 OK message.
>
> In version v3.1.0 the ACK to a 200OK is sent by ATA with URI equal to
the
> proxy address
> as indicated by Record-Route in the previously received 200OK, and with
a
Route: header
equal to the URI of the remote party (U2). With this SER perform
loose-routing, take the
URI in the Route: hf and sent the message to U2.
This is actually strict routing.
>
> In version v3.1.1 the ACK to a 200OK is sent by ATA with URI equal to > address
> (without port information) and a Route: header indicating the URI of the
> proxy. So is
> expected that SER perform loose-routing taking the URI in the Route:
header
> and send
> the message to itself in this case (Route contain address of proxy
instead
> of U2) but
> not, the loose-routing is not performed for unknown reason (may be ftag
or
lr ?) and
the message is sent to the original uri (U2 ip without port) and never
arrive because
the U2 endpoint are listen in other port (26198 instead of 5060).
This is "normal" loose routing (you don't touch the uri, but you send
the message to the route address). It seems they use loose routing in
this version.
However you are right about the port bug. The uri must contain the same
uri as in the 200 Ok Contact, including the port.
Andrei