Hello,
That was a bug in record routing module. It is now fixed in the stable branch of the CVS.
See http://iptel.org/ser/cvs for description of downloading the stable branch, or you can download it from here:
http://iptel.org/~janakj/stable/ser-0.8.11pre32_src.tar.gz
Please upgrade your ser and try again. Thanks for reporting it.
Jan.
On 24-06 16:39, Chintan Thakker wrote:
Thank you for your patience, I have put all the traces here..
-- ngrep trace start --
ngrep -t port 5060 interface: eth0 (192.1.2.0/255.255.255.0) filter: ip and ( port 5060 ) # # U 2003/06/24 16:44:39.787675 192.1.2.88:5060 -> 192.1.2.17:5060 INVITE sip:9727610001@192.1.2.17 SIP/2.0.Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.1.2.88:5060;b ranch=z9hG4bK2342.Max-Forwards: 70.From: 9727619271 <sip:9727619271@192.1.2 .88>;tag=2342.To: 9727610001 sip:9727610001@192.1.2.17.Call-ID: 71327895@ 192.1.2.88.CSeq: 1 INVITE.Contact: sip:9727619271@192.1.2.88.Content-Type : application/sdp.Content-Length: 128.Route: sip:192.1.2.17;lr..v=0.o=use rname 2342 2342 IN IP4 192.1.2.88.s=Session SDP.c=IN IP4 192.1.2.88.t=0 0.m =audio 54454 RTP/AVP 0.a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000. # U 2003/06/24 16:44:39.788623 192.1.2.17:5060 -> 192.1.2.88:5060 SIP/2.0 100 trying -- your call is important to us..Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.1. 2.88:5060;branch=z9hG4bK2342..From: 9727619271 sip:9727619271@192.1.2.88; tag=2342.To: 9727610001 sip:9727610001@192.1.2.17.Call-ID: 71327895@192.1 .2.88.CSeq: 1 INVITE.Server: Sip EXpress router (0.8.11pre29 (i386/linux)). .Content-Length: 0..Warning: 392 192.1.2.17:5060 "Noisy feedback tells: pi d=17073 req_src_ip=192.1.2.88 req_src_port=5060 in_uri=sip:9727610001@192.1 .2.17 out_uri=sip:9727610001@192.1.2.17 via_cnt==1".... # U 2003/06/24 16:44:40.213333 192.1.2.17:5060 -> 192.1.2.88:5060 SIP/2.0 483 Too Many Hops..Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.1.2.88:5060;branch=z9hG4bK2 342..From: 9727619271 sip:9727619271@192.1.2.88;tag=2342.To: 9727610001 <
sip:9727610001@192.1.2.17>;tag=b27e1a1d33761e85846fc98f5f3a7e58.e341.Call-I D: 71327895@192.1.2.88.CSeq: 1 INVITE.Server: Sip EXpress router (0.8.11pre 29 (i386/linux))..Content-Length: 0..Warning: 392 192.1.2.17:5060 "Noisy fe edback tells: pid=17072 req_src_ip=192.1.2.17 req_src_port=5060 in_uri=sip :9727610001@192.1.2.17 out_uri=sip:9727610001@192.1.2.17 via_cnt==71".... # U 2003/06/24 16:44:40.813094 192.1.2.17:5060 -> 192.1.2.88:5060 SIP/2.0 483 Too Many Hops..Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.1.2.88:5060;branch=z9hG4bK2 342..From: 9727619271 sip:9727619271@192.1.2.88;tag=2342.To: 9727610001 <
sip:9727610001@192.1.2.17>;tag=b27e1a1d33761e85846fc98f5f3a7e58.e341.Call-I D: 71327895@192.1.2.88.CSeq: 1 INVITE.Server: Sip EXpress router (0.8.11pre 29 (i386/linux))..Content-Length: 0..Warning: 392 192.1.2.17:5060 "Noisy fe edback tells: pid=17072 req_src_ip=192.1.2.17 req_src_port=5060 in_uri=sip :9727610001@192.1.2.17 out_uri=sip:9727610001@192.1.2.17 via_cnt==71".... # U 2003/06/24 16:44:42.816700 192.1.2.17:5060 -> 192.1.2.88:5060 SIP/2.0 483 Too Many Hops..Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.1.2.88:5060;branch=z9hG4bK2 342..From: 9727619271 sip:9727619271@192.1.2.88;tag=2342.To: 9727610001 <
sip:9727610001@192.1.2.17>;tag=b27e1a1d33761e85846fc98f5f3a7e58.e341.Call-I D: 71327895@192.1.2.88.CSeq: 1 INVITE.Server: Sip EXpress router (0.8.11pre 29 (i386/linux))..Content-Length: 0..Warning: 392 192.1.2.17:5060 "Noisy fe edback tells: pid=17072 req_src_ip=192.1.2.17 req_src_port=5060 in_uri=sip :9727610001@192.1.2.17 out_uri=sip:9727610001@192.1.2.17 via_cnt==71"....
-- ngrep trace end --
Andy Blen wrote:
That was a false track. Can you make us a favor please and send messages as you see them on your loopback interface.
thanks,
-andy
At 11:00 PM 6/24/2003, Chintan Thakker wrote:
I do not completely follow what you are trying to say,
The server is running on 192.1.2.17 and I am registering two users
Thank you,
-- start ./serctl ul show -- ===Domain list=== ---Domain--- name : 'location' size : 512 table: 0x422b88c4 d_ll { n : 2 first: 0x422ba8f4 last : 0x422baa78 }
...Record(0x422ba8f4)... domain: 'location' aor : '9727619271'
domain : 'location' aor : '9727619271' Contact: 'sip:9727619271@192.1.2.88' Expires: 3569 q : 0.00 Call-ID: '1241@192.1.2.88' CSeq : 1 replic : 0 State : CS_NEW next : (nil) prev : (nil) ~~~/Contact~~~~ .../Record... ...Record(0x422baa78)... domain: 'location' aor : '9727610001' ~~~Contact(0x422bab0c)~~~ domain : 'location' aor : '9727610001' Contact: 'sip:9727610001@192.1.2.223' Expires: 3595 q : 0.00 Call-ID: '1281@192.1.2.223' CSeq : 1 replic : 0 State : CS_NEW next : (nil) prev : (nil) ~~~/Contact~~~~ .../Record... ---/Domain--- ===/Domain list=== -- end ./serctl ul show -- Andy Blen wrote: >(you forgot to CC the mailing list) > >a possibility is that the contacts you registered cause a loop. > >andy > >At 06:22 PM 6/24/2003, Chintan Thakker wrote: > > > > >>Hi, >>Seems I missed something, I am sending INVITE to >>sip:9727610001@192.1.2.17 with Route: <sip:192.1.2.17;lr> to the proxy >>server ('ser') running on 192.1.2.17 and getting 483 - too many hops >>message. I modified ser.conf to add alias = "192.1.2.17" but it still >>gives me the same problem. >>What am I missing out ?. I guess an 'alias=192.1.2.17' entry should >>return a true to 'uri==myself' matching performed in the script and >>make the server process that request rather than forwarding it (to >>itself in this case) >> >>Thanks, >>Chintan >> >>-- ser.cfg -- >> >>1 # >> 2 # $Id: ser.cfg,v 1.20 2003/05/31 21:12:19 jiri Exp $ >> 3 # >> 4 # simple quick-start config script >> 5 # >> 6 >> 7 # ----------- global configuration parameters >> ------------------------ >> 8 >> 9 debug=3 # debug level (cmd line: -dddddddddd) >>10 fork=yes >>11 log_stderror=no # (cmd line: -E) >>12 >>13 /* Uncomment these lines to enter debugging mode >>14 debug=7 >>15 fork=no >>16 log_stderror=yes >>17 */ >>18 >>19 check_via=no # (cmd. line: -v) >>20 dns=no # (cmd. line: -r) >>21 rev_dns=no # (cmd. line: -R) >>22 port=5060 >>23 children=4 >>24 fifo="/tmp/ser_fifo" >>25 >>26 # ------------------ module loading >>---------------------------------- >>27 >>28 # Uncomment this if you want to use SQL database >>29 #loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/mysql.so" >>30 >>31 loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/sl.so" >>32 loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/tm.so" >>33 loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/rr.so" >>34 loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/maxfwd.so" >>35 loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/usrloc.so" >>36 loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/registrar.so" >>37 >>38 # Uncomment this if you want digest authentication >>39 # mysql.so must be loaded ! >>40 #loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/auth.so" >>41 #loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/auth_db.so" >>42 >>43 # ----------------- setting module-specific parameters >>--------------- >>44 >>45 # -- usrloc params -- >>46 >>47 modparam("usrloc", "db_mode", 0) >>48 >>49 # Uncomment this if you want to use SQL database >>50 # for persistent storage and comment the previous line >>51 #modparam("usrloc", "db_mode", 2) >>52 >>53 # -- auth params -- >>54 # Uncomment if you are using auth module >>55 # >>56 #modparam("auth_db", "calculate_ha1", yes) >>57 # >>58 # If you set "calculate_ha1" parameter to yes (which true in this >>config), >>59 # uncomment also the following parameter) >>60 # >>61 #modparam("auth_db", "password_column", "password") >>62 >>63 # ------------------------- request routing logic >>------------------- >>64 >>65 #add aliases >>66 alias="192.1.2.17" >>67 >>68 # main routing logic >>69 >>70 route{ >>71 >>72 # initial sanity checks -- messages with >>73 # max_forwards==0, or excessively long requests >>74 if (!mf_process_maxfwd_header("10")) { >>75 sl_send_reply("483","Too Many Hops"); >>76 break; >>77 }; >>78 if (len_gt( max_len )) { >>79 sl_send_reply("513", "Message too big"); >>80 break; >>81 }; >>82 >>83 # we record-route all messages -- to make sure that >>84 # subsequent messages will go through our proxy; that's >>85 # particularly good if upstream and downstream entities >>86 # use different transport protocol >>87 record_route(); >>88 # loose-route processing >>89 if (loose_route()) { >>90 t_relay(); >>91 break; >>92 }; >>93 >>94 # if the request is for other domain use UsrLoc >>95 # (in case, it does not work, use the following command >>96 # with proper names and addresses in it) >>97 if (uri==myself) { >>98 >>99 if (method=="REGISTER") { >>100 >>101 # Uncomment this if you want to use digest authentication >>102 # if (!www_authorize("iptel.org", >>"subscriber")) { >>103 # www_challenge("iptel.org", "0"); >> >>53,1 65% >>104 # break; >>105 # }; >>106 >>107 save("location"); >>108 break; >>109 }; >>110 >>111 # native SIP destinations are handled using our >>USRLOC DB >>112 if (!lookup("location")) { >>113 sl_send_reply("404", "Not Found"); >>114 break; >>115 }; >>116 }; >>117 #Let tje server [rpcess tje cirremt reqiest >>118 #if(uri =~ "^sip:(.+@)?(192\.1\.2\.17)([:;\?].*)?$" ) >>119 #{ >>120 # break; >>121 #}; >>122 >>123 # forward to current uri now; use stateful forwarding; that >>124 # works reliably even if we forward from TCP to UDP >>125 if (!t_relay()) { >>126 sl_reply_error(); >>127 }; >>128 >>129 } >>130 >>- end ser.cfg -- >>Andy Blen wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>>most likely a misconfig issue on your side, feel free to read the doc, >>>http://www.iptel.org/ser/doc/prerelease/x1026.html#AEN1032 >>> >>>andy >>> >>>At 12:18 AM 6/21/2003, Chintan Thakker wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>Hi, >>>>Consider the following scenario. UA1 is trying to call UA2 both >>>>registered with the same proxy. (UA1 -> 'ser' -> UA2) >>>> >>>>1. >>>>UA1 sends INVITE to the proxy with request uri set to UA2. It also >>>>sets the Route header in the invite to that of the proxy. >>>>This returns a 483 - too many hops to UA1 >>>> >>>>It seems that in the above mentioned scenario, the proxy loops back >>>>the INVITE multiple times locally. This decrements the Max Forwards >>>>value every time until it becomes zero and hence sends 483 back to >>>>UA1. It seems to me this is not the correct behavior of the server. >>>>It should forward the request to UA2. >>>> >>>>Thanks in advance, >>>> >>>>Chintan >>>> >>>>-- Start trace -- >>>> >>>>U 2003/06/20 15:24:42.362466 192.1.2.88:5060 -> 192.1.2.17:5060 >>>>INVITE sip:9727610001@192.1.2.17 SIP/2.0.Via: SIP/2.0/UDP >>>>192.1.2.88:5060;b >>>>ranch=z9hG4bK421668676.Max-Forwards: 70.From: 9727619271 >>>><sip:9727619271@19 >>>>2.1.2.88>;tag=421668676.To: 9727610001 >>>><sip:9727610001@192.1.2.17>.Call-ID: >>>>421668676@192.1.2.88.CSeq: 1 INVITE.Contact: >>>><sip:9727619271@192.1.2.88>.C >>>>ontent-Type: application/sdp.Content-Length: 138.Route: >>>><sip:192.1.2.17;lr> >>>>..v=0.o=username 421668676 421668676 IN IP4 192.1.2.88.s=Session >>>>SDP.c=IN I >>>>P4 192.1.2.88.t=0 0.m=audio 54454 RTP/AVP 0.a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000. >>>> >>>>U 2003/06/20 15:24:42.363813 192.1.2.17:5060 -> 192.1.2.88:5060 >>>>SIP/2.0 100 trying -- your call is important to us..Via: SIP/2.0/UDP >>>>192.1. >>>>2.88:5060;branch=z9hG4bK421668676..From: 9727619271 >>>><sip:9727619271@192.1.2 >>>>.88>;tag=421668676.To: 9727610001 >>>><sip:9727610001@192.1.2.17>.Call-ID: 4216 >>>>68676@192.1.2.88.CSeq: 1 INVITE.Server: Sip EXpress router >>>>(0.8.11pre29 (i3 >>>>86/linux))..Content-Length: 0..Warning: 392 192.1.2.17:5060 "Noisy >>>>feedback >>>>tells: pid=15107 req_src_ip=192.1.2.88 req_src_port=5060 >>>>in_uri=sip:97276 >>>>10001@192.1.2.17 out_uri=sip:9727610001@192.1.2.17 via_cnt==1".... >>>># >>>>U 2003/06/20 15:24:42.794681 192.1.2.17:5060 -> 192.1.2.88:5060 >>>>SIP/2.0 483 Too Many Hops..Via: SIP/2.0/UDP >>>>192.1.2.88:5060;branch=z9hG4bK4 >>>>21668676..From: 9727619271 >>>><sip:9727619271@192.1.2.88>;tag=421668676.To: 97 >>>>27610001 >>>><sip:9727610001@192.1.2.17>;tag=b27e1a1d33761e85846fc98f5f3a7e58.4 >>>>632.Call-ID: 421668676@192.1.2.88.CSeq: 1 INVITE.Server: Sip EXpress >>>>router >>>>(0.8.11pre29 (i386/linux))..Content-Length: 0..Warning: 392 >>>>192.1.2.17:506 >>>>0 "Noisy feedback tells: pid=15107 req_src_ip=192.1.2.17 >>>>req_src_port=5060 >>>>in_uri=sip:9727610001@192.1.2.17 out_uri=sip:9727610001@192.1.2.17 >>>>via_cnt >>>>==71".... >>>> >>>>-- End trace -- >>>> >>>>ps: We checked it with loose routing(suceeding ';lr' present in URIs >>>>in Route) as well as strict routing(suceeding ';lr' not present in >>>>URIs in Route). Should the type of routing used matter ? >>>> >>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>Serusers mailing list >>>>serusers@lists.iptel.org >>>>http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>-- >>>Andy Blen >>>iptel.org Services >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >-- >Andy Blen >iptel.org Services > > >-- Andy Blen iptel.org Services
Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers