23 Jul
2020
23 Jul
'20
4:08 p.m.
Hello,
there is no call at that moment, it is a routing-in-progress for the
initial INVITE. The proxy can cancel the outgoing branch that returned
the 183, send to another target address (e.g., call hunting scenario)
which comes back with another 183 and different to-tag, or if the second
target does not send any reply, then proxy generates itself a 408 reply
-- just to give an example of a possible valid scenario.
So, the To-tag is used to identify requests within an established dialog
or to terminate a proxy-created branch in early phase. It is not used to
match the reply for initial INVITE transaction -- for that purpose the
branch parameter of first via should be used by calling UA.
A call is terminated by a BYE and there to-tag matters indeed. But a
transaction is not identified by using to-tag.
Cheers,
Daniel
On 23.07.20 14:41, Gerry | Rigatta wrote:
Hi Daniel,
thanks for looking into this.
The initial INVITE does not have a to-tag but there is an intermediate
session progress with a to-tag. See grep below.
The RFC does not distinguish between established or provisional
dialogs when it comes to the handling of the to-tags. If there is a
to-tag it must not be changed by the Proxy. Clearly that must be so
because the to-tag is used by the UAC to identify the call.
Best Gerry
IP addresses are changed in below dialog for security reasons
U 7.7.23.109:5060 -> 11.22.17.24:5060 #5
INVITE sip:111100791456321475@13.23.9.94:5060 SIP/2.0..Max-Forwards: 19.
.P-Asserted-Identity: tel:+4867777777..Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 7.7.23.109:5060
;rport;branch=z9hG4bK1682611991..From: "004867777777"
<sip:004867777777@7
8.47.203.109>;tag=540342132..To: <sip:111100791456321475@13.23.9.94:5060
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- www.asipto.com
www.twitter.com/miconda -- www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
Funding: https://www.paypal.me/dcmierla
..Call-ID: 1279305029(a)7.7.23.109
<mailto:1279305029@7.7.23.109>..CSeq: 1 INVITE..User-Agent: nulltech.
.Contact: <sip:004867777777@7.7.23.109:5060>..Allow: ACK, INVITE, BYE,
CANCEL, REGISTER, REFER, OPTIONS, PRACK, INFO..Supported:
100rel..Content-T
ype: application/sdp..Content-Length: 209....v=0..o=yate 1595505273
1595505
273 IN IP4 7.7.23.109..s=SIP Call..c=IN IP4 7.7.23.109..t=0 0..m=audi
o 28610 RTP/AVP 8 0 101..a=rtpmap:8 PCMA/8000..a=rtpmap:0
PCMU/8000..a=rtpm
ap:101 telephone-event/8000..
#
U 11.22.17.24:5060 -> 7.7.23.109:5060 #6
SIP/2.0 100 trying -- your call is important to us..Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
78.47.
203.109:5060;rport=5061;branch=z9hG4bK1682611991;received=7.7.23.109..Fr
om: "004867777777" <sip:004867777777@7.7.23.109>;tag=540342132..To:
<s
ip:111100791456321475@13.23.9.94
<mailto:111100791456321475@13.23.9.94>:5060>..Call-ID:
1279305029(a)7.7.23.10 <mailto:1279305029@7.7.23.10>
9..CSeq: 1 INVITE..Server: kamailio (5.2.3
(x86_64/linux))..Content-Length:
0....
#
U 11.22.17.24:5060 -> 13.23.9.94:5060 #7
INVITE sip:111100791456321475@13.23.9.94:5060 SIP/2.0..Record-Route: <si
p:11.22.17.24:5060;lr=on>..Max-Forwards: 18..P-Asserted-Identity: tel:+
4867777777..Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 11.22.17.24:5060;branch=z9hG4bK58d4.f1e37
b7feb047b6707c5fb8a298d36fc.0..Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 7.7.23.109:5060;received
=7.7.23.109;rport=5061;branch=z9hG4bK1682611991..From: "004867777777" <
sip:004867777777@7.7.23.109>;tag=540342132..To: <sip:111100791456321475
@13.23.9.94:5060>..Call-ID: 1279305029(a)7.7.23.109
<mailto:1279305029@7.7.23.109>..CSeq: 1 INVITE..Us
er-Agent: nulltech..Contact: <sip:004867777777@7.7.23.109:5060>..Allow:
ACK, INVITE, BYE, CANCEL, REGISTER, REFER, OPTIONS, PRACK,
INFO..Supported
: 100rel..Content-Type: application/sdp..Content-Length:
209....v=0..o=yate
1595505273 1595505273 IN IP4 7.7.23.109..s=SIP Call..c=IN IP4 7.7.23
.109..t=0 0..m=audio 28610 RTP/AVP 8 0 101..a=rtpmap:8
PCMA/8000..a=rtpmap:
0 PCMU/8000..a=rtpmap:101 telephone-event/8000..
#
U 13.23.9.94:5060 -> 11.22.17.24:5060 #8
SIP/2.0 100 Trying..Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 11.22.17.24:5060;branch=z9hG4bK58d
4.f1e37b7feb047b6707c5fb8a298d36fc.0;received=11.22.17.24..Via: SIP/2.0
/UDP 7.7.23.109:5060;received=7.7.23.109;rport=5061;branch=z9hG4bK168
2611991..Record-Route: <sip:11.22.17.24:5060;lr=on>..From: "00371673360
58" <sip:004867777777@7.7.23.109>;tag=540342132..To: <sip:1111007914563
21475(a)13.23.9.94 <mailto:21475@13.23.9.94>:5060>..Call-ID:
1279305029(a)7.7.23.109 <mailto:1279305029@7.7.23.109>..CSeq: 1 INVIT
E..User-Agent: Ravetel SIP proxy..Allow: INVITE, ACK, CANCEL,
OPTIONS, BYE,
REFER, SUBSCRIBE, NOTIFY, INFO..Supported: replaces..Contact:
<sip:1111007
91456321475(a)13.23.9.94
<mailto:91456321475@13.23.9.94>:5060>..Content-Length: 0....
#
U 13.23.9.94:5060 -> 11.22.17.24:5060 #9
SIP/2.0 183 Session Progress..Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 11.22.17.24:5060;branch=
z9hG4bK58d4.f1e37b7feb047b6707c5fb8a298d36fc.0;received=11.22.17.24..Vi
a: SIP/2.0/UDP 7.7.23.109:5060;received=7.7.23.109;rport=5061;branch=
z9hG4bK1682611991..Record-Route: <sip:11.22.17.24:5060;lr=on>..From: "0
04867777777" <sip:004867777777@7.7.23.109>;tag=540342132..To: <sip:103
000791456321475(a)13.23.9.94
<mailto:000791456321475@13.23.9.94>:5060>;tag=as6d86b4e8..Call-ID:
1279305029@78.
47.203.109..CSeq: 1 INVITE..User-Agent: Ravetel SIP proxy..Allow:
INVITE, A
CK, CANCEL, OPTIONS, BYE, REFER, SUBSCRIBE, NOTIFY, INFO..Supported:
replac
es..Contact: <sip:111100791456321475@13.23.9.94:5060>..Content-Type: app
lication/sdp..Content-Length: 235....v=0..o=root 714 714 IN IP4
136.243.29.
94..s=session..c=IN IP4 13.23.9.94..t=0 0..m=audio 10454 RTP/AVP 8 0 101
..a=rtpmap:8 PCMA/8000..a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000..a=rtpmap:101
telephone-event/
8000..a=fmtp:101 0-16..a=ptime:20..a=sendrecv..
#
U 11.22.17.24:5060 -> 7.7.23.109:5060 #10
SIP/2.0 183 Session Progress..Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 7.7.23.109:5060;received=
7.7.23.109;rport=5061;branch=z9hG4bK1682611991..Record-Route: <sip:116.2
02.187.204:5060;lr=on>..From: "004867777777" <sip:004867777777@7.7.23.
109>;tag=540342132..To: <sip:111100791456321475@13.23.9.94:5060>;tag=as6
d86b4e8..Call-ID: 1279305029(a)7.7.23.109
<mailto:1279305029@7.7.23.109>..CSeq: 1 INVITE..User-Agent: Ravet
el SIP proxy..Allow: INVITE, ACK, CANCEL, OPTIONS, BYE, REFER, SUBSCRIBE,
NOTIFY, INFO..Supported: replaces..Contact:
<sip:111100791456321475@136.24
3.29.94:5060>..Content-Type: application/sdp..Content-Length:
235....v=0..o
=root 714 714 IN IP4 13.23.9.94..s=session..c=IN IP4 13.23.9.94..t=0
0..m=audio 10454 RTP/AVP 8 0 101..a=rtpmap:8 PCMA/8000..a=rtpmap:0
PCMU/800
0..a=rtpmap:101 telephone-event/8000..a=fmtp:101
0-16..a=ptime:20..a=sendre
cv..
#
U 13.23.9.94:5060 -> 11.22.17.24:5060 #39
SIP/2.0 503 Service Unavailable..Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 11.22.17.24:5060;bran
ch=z9hG4bK58d4.f1e37b7feb047b6707c5fb8a298d36fc.0;received=11.22.17.24.
.Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 7.7.23.109:5060;received=7.7.23.109;rport=5061;bran
ch=z9hG4bK1682611991..From: "004867777777" <sip:004867777777@7.7.23.10
9>;tag=540342132..To: <sip:111100791456321475@13.23.9.94:5060>;tag=as6d8
6b4e8..Call-ID: 1279305029(a)7.7.23.109
<mailto:1279305029@7.7.23.109>..CSeq: 1 INVITE..User-Agent: Ravet
el SIP proxy..Allow: INVITE, ACK, CANCEL, OPTIONS, BYE, REFER,
SUBSCRIBE, N
OTIFY, INFO..Supported: replaces..X-Asterisk-HangupCause: Call
Rejected..X-
Asterisk-HangupCauseCode: 21..Content-Length: 0....
#
U 11.22.17.24:5060 -> 13.23.9.94:5060 #40
ACK sip:111100791456321475@13.23.9.94:5060 SIP/2.0..Max-Forwards: 18..Vi
a: SIP/2.0/UDP 11.22.17.24:5060;branch=z9hG4bK58d4.f1e37b7feb047b6707c5
fb8a298d36fc.0..From: "004867777777" <sip:004867777777@7.7.23.109>;tag
=540342132..To: <sip:111100791456321475@13.23.9.94:5060>;tag=as6d86b4e8.
.Call-ID: 1279305029(a)7.7.23.109
<mailto:1279305029@7.7.23.109>..CSeq: 1 ACK..Content-Length: 0....
#
U 11.22.17.24:5060 -> 7.7.23.109:5060 #41
SIP/2.0 500 Service Unavailable..Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 7.7.23.109:5060;rport=
5061;branch=z9hG4bK1682611991;received=7.7.23.109..From: "004867777777"
<sip:004867777777@7.7.23.109>;tag=540342132..To: <sip:1111007914563214
75(a)13.23.9.94
<mailto:75@13.23.9.94>:5060>;tag=95329101123423eab1637e9ad490b3a6-9d3c..Call-ID:
1279305029(a)7.7.23.109 <mailto:1279305029@7.7.23.109>..CSeq: 1
INVITE..Server: kamailio (5.2.3 (x86_64/l
inux))..Content-Length: 0....
#
U 11.22.17.24:5060 -> 7.7.23.109:5060 #42
SIP/2.0 500 Service Unavailable..Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 7.7.23.109:5060;rport=
5061;branch=z9hG4bK1682611991;received=7.7.23.109..From: "004867777777"
<sip:004867777777@7.7.23.109>;tag=540342132..To: <sip:1111007914563214
75(a)13.23.9.94
<mailto:75@13.23.9.94>:5060>;tag=95329101123423eab1637e9ad490b3a6-9d3c..Call-ID:
1279305029(a)7.7.23.109 <mailto:1279305029@7.7.23.109>..CSeq: 1
INVITE..Server: kamailio (5.2.3 (x86_64/l
inux))..Content-Length: 0....
#
On 23 Jul 2020, at 10:51, Daniel-Constantin
Mierla <miconda(a)gmail.com
<mailto:miconda@gmail.com>> wrote:
Did the initial INVITE received the 200ok, the call is connected and
this is the case of a re-INVITE? In such case the dialog has to be
terminated by a BYE.
If the call is not established, so it is between initial INVITE and
no 200ok was received, then the INVITE request did not contain the
To-tag. And what is done by Kamailio is valid as per email responses
so far.
Maybe you can just send the ngrep output with all sip
requests/replies for this case and we can see exactly which scenario
you talk about.
Cheers,
Daniel
On 23.07.20 09:41, Gerry | Rigatta wrote:
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- www.asipto.com
www.twitter.com/miconda -- www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
Funding: https://www.paypal.me/dcmierla
Indeed, at this stage there is no dialog established and there can
be many To-tags in 1xx provisional responses (eg, a parallel
forking scenario) -- the to-tag of the dialog has to be taken from
200ok.
As far as I read this is not correct. Also a provisional dialog is a
dialog according to RFC3261. Only in the case that the request did
not contain a to-tag the provisional messages may insert their own
to-tags:
"1xx and 2xx responses may be involved in the establishment of
dialogs. When a request does not contain a To tag, the To tag
in the response is used by the UAC to distinguish multiple
responses to a dialog creating request. A proxy MUST NOT
insert a tag into the To header field of a 1xx or 2xx response
if the request did not contain one. A proxy MUST NOT modify
the tag in the To header field of a 1xx or 2xx response.”
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3261#page-111
In any case, this bug is not a about provisional messages. The 500
message terminates the dialog for the UAC (yate) and the UAC needs
to be able to identify it. An UAC identifies the dialog by the
call-id, local tag and remote tag.
>
> 12<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3261#section-12> Dialogs
>
>
> A dialog is identified at each UA with a dialog ID, which
> consists of a Call-ID value, a local tag and a remote tag…"
>
> On 23 Jul 2020, at 10:07, Daniel-Constantin Mierla
> <miconda(a)gmail.com <mailto:miconda@gmail.com>> wrote:
Indeed, at this stage there is no dialog established and there can
be many To-tags in 1xx provisional responses (eg, a parallel
forking scenario) -- the to-tag of the dialog has to be taken from
200ok.
> This parameter is probably to have a shortcut of doing:
>
> failure_route[REMAP503] {
>
> if(t_check_status("503")) {
>
> t_reply("500", "Server error");
> exit;
>
> }
>
> Being like the server application is generating the 500 (so using
> own tag), instead of forwarding the 503. Not a bug, but if anyone
> is willing to add an option to allow re-using the to-tag from
> received reply, I am fine with it.
>
> Anyhow, even if this would be fixed, I am wondering how yate is
> going to work in parallel/serial forking scenarios where different
> to-tags flow for a while and the final failure response can have
> any to-tag, including a new one (e.g., from a device not sending
> any 1xx or again from kamailio (e.g., when last target doesn't
> reply at all)).
>
> Cheers,
> Daniel
>
> On 23.07.20 06:08, M S wrote:
>> The SIP code 503 is tricky in the sense that i can indicate either
>> server maintenance or server overload. In both cases it can send
>> Retry-After header and any subsequent requests from same source
>> are ignored for the duration of Retry-After interval. [1].
>>
>> Additionally RFC3261 and RFC3263 define that transport failures
>> (generally due to fatal ICMP errors in UDP and connection failures
>> in TCP) should be treated as 503 response. [2].
>>
>> So in all above cases, it is most likely that dialog does not
>> establishes at all and 503 response is treated similar to
>> stateless response. Therefore, a to-tag can be added/replaced
>> before sending it to UAC.
>>
>> Theoretically, kamailio should check and use to-tag from 503
>> response when converting it to 500 response and only create new
>> to-tag if it is absent.
>>
>> References:
>>
>> [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3261#section-21.5.4
>>
>> [2]
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hilt-sip-correction-503-01#section-4
>>
>>
>> Hope this helps.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 22 Jul 2020 at 21:08, Henning Westerholt <hw(a)skalatan.de
>> <mailto:hw@skalatan.de>> wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>>
>>
>> Apparently, this is the way the code works:
>>
>>
>>
>> t_reply.c:
>>
>> if (relayed_code==503 &&
>> tm_remap_503_500){
>>
>> /* replace a final 503 with a 500:
>>
>> * generate a "FAKE" reply and
>> a new to_tag (for easier
>>
>> * debugging)*/
>>
>>
>>
>> Lets see if maybe others can comment as well. Otherwise you
>> could just open an issue on our tracker, it is probably not
>> that hard to change this.
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>>
>>
>> Henning
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Henning Westerholt – https://skalatan.de/blog/
>>
>> Kamailio services – https://gilawa.com <https://gilawa.com/>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* sr-users <sr-users-bounces(a)lists.kamailio.org
>> <mailto:sr-users-bounces@lists.kamailio.org>> *On Behalf Of
>> *Gerry | Rigatta
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 22, 2020 8:58 PM
>> *To:* Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
>> <sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org
<mailto:sr-users@lists.kamailio.org>>
>> *Subject:* [SR-Users] bug ? remap_503_500 breaks dialogs
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>>
>> I am using Kamailio 5.2.
>>
>>
>>
>> Apparently the remapping of 503 to 500 codes in the tm module
>> does also change the to-tag. This behaviour breaks dialogs
>> with yate and therefore calls hang and the 503 remains
>> unacknowledged. After disabling the 503 to 500 remapping with
>> modparam("tm", "remap_503_500", 0) all works fine again.
>>
>>
>>
>> Changing the to-tag in a dialog seems to contradict RFC3261,
>> or do I see this wrongly?
>>
>>
>> 12<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3261#section-12>Dialogs
>>
>>
>> A dialog is identified at each UA with a dialog ID, which
>> consists of a Call-ID value, a local tag and a remote tag…"
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks for looking into this.
>>
>>
>>
>> Gerry
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
>> sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org <mailto:sr-users@lists.kamailio.org>
>> https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
>> sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org
>> https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
> --
> Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- www.asipto.com
> www.twitter.com/miconda -- www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
> Funding: https://www.paypal.me/dcmierla
> _______________________________________________
> Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
> sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org <mailto:sr-users@lists.kamailio.org>
> https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users