I'm new to this mailing list. This seems like an interesting question, so thought would put my 2 cents in:
It seems like this is incorrect behavior on SER's part. SER is entitled to maintain the public IP addresses for the Contact in it's location service. But, the 200 OK that goes out on the wire to the end-point should contain the same Contact IP addresses that came in the REGISTER.
_____
From: serusers-bounces@iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org] On Behalf Of Vitaly Nikolaev Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 1:25 PM To: 'Linda Xiao'; 'Java Rockx' Cc: serusers@lists.iptel.org Subject: RE: [Serusers] Claims of ser-0.9 RFC3261 Violation
I do not agree... Contact should be same in the dialog...
_____
From: serusers-bounces@iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org] On Behalf Of Linda Xiao Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 1:16 PM To: Java Rockx Cc: serusers@lists.iptel.org Subject: RE: [Serusers] Claims of ser-0.9 RFC3261 Violation
You are not the only service provider who makes this kind of changes. I also encountered the same problem recently. But so far, this problem only happened on one UA which has the same sip engine as this engineer's. All other UAs in my hand can adapt this kinds of changes. So I personally think that instead of complaining SIP proxy violation, I would rather complain the interoperatibility of this sip engine.
regards/Linda
-----Original Message----- From: serusers-bounces@iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org] On Behalf Of Klaus Darilion Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 9:37 AM To: Java Rockx Cc: serusers@lists.iptel.org Subject: Re: [Serusers] Claims of ser-0.9 RFC3261 Violation
I guess the engineer is right. Thus, I use fix_nated_register() instead of fix_nated_contact which does not rewrite the contact header.
regards, klaus
Java Rockx wrote:
It is the same. Their IAD successfully registers the first time, but loses its registration because re-REGISTER messages are claimed to be in voliation of RFC3261.
Here is exactly what their engineers are telling me:
Paul, Here is the my findings regarding the contact field in the REGISTER message...
We suspect the registration fails because the Contact of 200OK does not match the Contact of REGISTER:
From the capture, Our network toplogy is like:
TA: 192.168.0.180 <--------> Router 65.77.37.2 <----------> Softswitch 64.84.242.120
Packet 4 REGISTER: Contact: sip:3212514276@192.168.0.180;user=phone;expires=200
Packet 6 200OK: Contact: sip:3212514276@65.77.37.2:36323;user=phone;expires=200, sip:3212514276@65.77.37.2:36235;user=phone;expires=3
In RFC3261, it says: The 200 (OK) response from the registrar contains a list of Contact fields enumerating all current bindings. The UA compares each contact address to see if it created the contact address, using comparison rules in Section 19.1.4. If so, it updates the
expiration
time interval according to the expires parameter or, if absent, the Expires field value. The UA then issues a REGISTER request for each of its bindings before the expiration interval has elapsed. It MAY combine several updates into one REGISTER request.
So obviously the contact addresses in 200OK don't match the one in REGISTER.
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 11:28:51 -0500, Vitaly Nikolaev vitaly@voipsonic.com wrote:
Is contact field that SER sends to UAS is same for all requests ?
If not probably you are not doing fix natted contact in some cases
-----Original Message----- From: serusers-bounces@iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org] On Behalf Of Java Rockx Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 11:17 AM To: serusers@lists.iptel.org Subject: [Serusers] Claims of ser-0.9 RFC3261 Violation
I just spoke with an enginee from a manufacturer of the WorldAccxx telephone adapter and he told me that my SIP proxy was in voliation of RFC3261.
Below is a SIP registration against my ser-0.9 proxy. I'm using media proxy for NAT traversal and he says that my 200 OK is not valid and therefore their IAD disregards the 200 OK response.
The problem he claims is with the Contact: header in the 200 OK. SER has rewritten the contact becase his IAD is NATed. Should I not be doing this?
The actual problem is that when their IAD is NATed the device looses its registration with ser because (they claim) that the REGISTER message they send has a <Contact> header iwith a different IP than what ser sends back in the 200 OK message.
They referenced section 10.2.4 and 19.1.4 in RFC3261.
Can anyone confirm or reject their claims?
Please help. Paul
REGISTER sip:sip.mycompany.com:5060 SIP/2.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.0.180;branch=z9hG4bKbb013e10d Max-Forwards: 70 Content-Length: 0 To: Accxx sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060 From: Accxx sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060;tag=1eb7db0b344ac92 Call-ID: bd4da0ebfe98297597243a92b1b0f868@192.168.0.180 CSeq: 392547129 REGISTER Contact: Accxx sip:1000@192.168.0.180;user=phone;expires=200 Allow: NOTIFY Allow: REFER Allow: OPTIONS Allow: INVITE Allow: ACK Allow: CANCEL Allow: BYE User-Agent: WATA200 Callctrl/1.5.1.1 MxSF/v3.2.6.26
SIP/2.0 100 Trying Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.0.180;branch=z9hG4bKbb013e10d;rport=36323;received=65.77.37.2 To: Accxx sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060 From: Accxx sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060;tag=1eb7db0b344ac92 Call-ID: bd4da0ebfe98297597243a92b1b0f868@192.168.0.180 CSeq: 392547129 REGISTER Content-Length: 0
SIP/2.0 401 Unauthorized Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.0.180;branch=z9hG4bKbb013e10d;rport=36323;received=65.77.37.2 To: Accxx sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060;tag=bf952ed189d8425c881b09485aa0b6f1 .bdad From: Accxx sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060;tag=1eb7db0b344ac92 Call-ID: bd4da0ebfe98297597243a92b1b0f868@192.168.0.180 CSeq: 392547129 REGISTER WWW-Authenticate: Digest realm="sip.mycompany.com", nonce="42025161902f6f6af11f01f0a93ad2877e606bbc" Content-Length: 0
REGISTER sip:sip.mycompany.com:5060 SIP/2.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.0.180;branch=z9hG4bK88fcb4e76 Max-Forwards: 70 Content-Length: 0 To: Accxx sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060 From: Accxx sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060;tag=1eb7db0b344ac92 Call-ID: bd4da0ebfe98297597243a92b1b0f868@192.168.0.180 CSeq: 392547130 REGISTER Contact: Accxx sip:1000@192.168.0.180;user=phone;expires=200 Allow: NOTIFY Allow: REFER Allow: OPTIONS Allow: INVITE Allow: ACK Allow: CANCEL Allow: BYE Authorization:Digest response="18aabe984a6d89cc537cec9ce43b198d",username="1000",realm="sip .mycom pany.com",nonce="42025161902f6f6af11f01f0a93ad2877e606bbc",uri="sip:si
p.myco
mpany.com:5060" User-Agent: WATA200 Callctrl/1.5.1.1 MxSF/v3.2.6.26
SIP/2.0 100 Trying Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.0.180;branch=z9hG4bK88fcb4e76;rport=36323;received=65.77.37.2 To: Accxx sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060 From: Accxx sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060;tag=1eb7db0b344ac92 Call-ID: bd4da0ebfe98297597243a92b1b0f868@192.168.0.180 CSeq: 392547130 REGISTER Content-Length: 0
SIP/2.0 200 OK Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.0.180;branch=z9hG4bK88fcb4e76;rport=36323;received=65.77.37.2 To: Accxx sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060;tag=bf952ed189d8425c881b09485aa0b6f1 .5e63 From: Accxx sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060;tag=1eb7db0b344ac92 Call-ID: bd4da0ebfe98297597243a92b1b0f868@192.168.0.180 CSeq: 392547130 REGISTER Contact: sip:1000@65.77.37.2:36323;user=phone;expires=200, sip:1000@65.77.37.2:36235;user=phone;expires=3 Content-Length: 0
Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
_______________________________________________ Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
If you use fix_nated_register then ser would never rewrite Contact in REGISTER and associated 200 OK. It would store the IP and port of the NAT separately in the user location databasee.
Also if SER receives an INVITE for that contact, user location lookup will rewrite the Request-URI with the original (unmodified) Contact value, but the message will be sent to the IP and port of the NAT.
This is the correct behavior, because it allows user agents to match the contact they registered in 200 OK comming from the server and yet SIP messages will make it through NATs.
Jan.
On 02-03 13:38, Jain, Rajnish wrote:
I'm new to this mailing list. This seems like an interesting question, so thought would put my 2 cents in:
It seems like this is incorrect behavior on SER's part. SER is entitled to maintain the public IP addresses for the Contact in it's location service. But, the 200 OK that goes out on the wire to the end-point should contain the same Contact IP addresses that came in the REGISTER.
From: serusers-bounces@iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org] On Behalf Of Vitaly Nikolaev Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 1:25 PM To: 'Linda Xiao'; 'Java Rockx' Cc: serusers@lists.iptel.org Subject: RE: [Serusers] Claims of ser-0.9 RFC3261 Violation
I do not agree... Contact should be same in the dialog...
From: serusers-bounces@iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org] On Behalf Of Linda Xiao Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 1:16 PM To: Java Rockx Cc: serusers@lists.iptel.org Subject: RE: [Serusers] Claims of ser-0.9 RFC3261 Violation
You are not the only service provider who makes this kind of changes. I also encountered the same problem recently. But so far, this problem only happened on one UA which has the same sip engine as this engineer's. All other UAs in my hand can adapt this kinds of changes. So I personally think that instead of complaining SIP proxy violation, I would rather complain the interoperatibility of this sip engine.
regards/Linda
-----Original Message----- From: serusers-bounces@iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org] On Behalf Of Klaus Darilion Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 9:37 AM To: Java Rockx Cc: serusers@lists.iptel.org Subject: Re: [Serusers] Claims of ser-0.9 RFC3261 Violation
I guess the engineer is right. Thus, I use fix_nated_register() instead of fix_nated_contact which does not rewrite the contact header.
regards, klaus
Java Rockx wrote:
It is the same. Their IAD successfully registers the first time, but loses its registration because re-REGISTER messages are claimed to be in voliation of RFC3261.
Here is exactly what their engineers are telling me:
Paul, Here is the my findings regarding the contact field in the REGISTER message...
We suspect the registration fails because the Contact of 200OK does not match the Contact of REGISTER:
From the capture, Our network toplogy is like:
TA: 192.168.0.180 <--------> Router 65.77.37.2 <----------> Softswitch 64.84.242.120
Packet 4 REGISTER: Contact: sip:3212514276@192.168.0.180;user=phone;expires=200
Packet 6 200OK: Contact: sip:3212514276@65.77.37.2:36323;user=phone;expires=200, sip:3212514276@65.77.37.2:36235;user=phone;expires=3
In RFC3261, it says: The 200 (OK) response from the registrar contains a list of Contact fields enumerating all current bindings. The UA compares each contact address to see if it created the contact address, using comparison rules in Section 19.1.4. If so, it updates the
expiration
time interval according to the expires parameter or, if absent, the Expires field value. The UA then issues a REGISTER request for each of its bindings before the expiration interval has elapsed. It MAY combine several updates into one REGISTER request.
So obviously the contact addresses in 200OK don't match the one in REGISTER.
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 11:28:51 -0500, Vitaly Nikolaev vitaly@voipsonic.com wrote:
Is contact field that SER sends to UAS is same for all requests ?
If not probably you are not doing fix natted contact in some cases
-----Original Message----- From: serusers-bounces@iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org] On Behalf Of Java Rockx Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 11:17 AM To: serusers@lists.iptel.org Subject: [Serusers] Claims of ser-0.9 RFC3261 Violation
I just spoke with an enginee from a manufacturer of the WorldAccxx telephone adapter and he told me that my SIP proxy was in voliation of RFC3261.
Below is a SIP registration against my ser-0.9 proxy. I'm using media proxy for NAT traversal and he says that my 200 OK is not valid and therefore their IAD disregards the 200 OK response.
The problem he claims is with the Contact: header in the 200 OK. SER has rewritten the contact becase his IAD is NATed. Should I not be doing this?
The actual problem is that when their IAD is NATed the device looses its registration with ser because (they claim) that the REGISTER message they send has a <Contact> header iwith a different IP than what ser sends back in the 200 OK message.
They referenced section 10.2.4 and 19.1.4 in RFC3261.
Can anyone confirm or reject their claims?
Please help. Paul
REGISTER sip:sip.mycompany.com:5060 SIP/2.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.0.180;branch=z9hG4bKbb013e10d Max-Forwards: 70 Content-Length: 0 To: Accxx sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060 From: Accxx sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060;tag=1eb7db0b344ac92 Call-ID: bd4da0ebfe98297597243a92b1b0f868@192.168.0.180 CSeq: 392547129 REGISTER Contact: Accxx sip:1000@192.168.0.180;user=phone;expires=200 Allow: NOTIFY Allow: REFER Allow: OPTIONS Allow: INVITE Allow: ACK Allow: CANCEL Allow: BYE User-Agent: WATA200 Callctrl/1.5.1.1 MxSF/v3.2.6.26
SIP/2.0 100 Trying Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.0.180;branch=z9hG4bKbb013e10d;rport=36323;received=65.77.37.2 To: Accxx sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060 From: Accxx sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060;tag=1eb7db0b344ac92 Call-ID: bd4da0ebfe98297597243a92b1b0f868@192.168.0.180 CSeq: 392547129 REGISTER Content-Length: 0
SIP/2.0 401 Unauthorized Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.0.180;branch=z9hG4bKbb013e10d;rport=36323;received=65.77.37.2 To: Accxx sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060;tag=bf952ed189d8425c881b09485aa0b6f1 .bdad From: Accxx sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060;tag=1eb7db0b344ac92 Call-ID: bd4da0ebfe98297597243a92b1b0f868@192.168.0.180 CSeq: 392547129 REGISTER WWW-Authenticate: Digest realm="sip.mycompany.com", nonce="42025161902f6f6af11f01f0a93ad2877e606bbc" Content-Length: 0
REGISTER sip:sip.mycompany.com:5060 SIP/2.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.0.180;branch=z9hG4bK88fcb4e76 Max-Forwards: 70 Content-Length: 0 To: Accxx sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060 From: Accxx sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060;tag=1eb7db0b344ac92 Call-ID: bd4da0ebfe98297597243a92b1b0f868@192.168.0.180 CSeq: 392547130 REGISTER Contact: Accxx sip:1000@192.168.0.180;user=phone;expires=200 Allow: NOTIFY Allow: REFER Allow: OPTIONS Allow: INVITE Allow: ACK Allow: CANCEL Allow: BYE Authorization:Digest response="18aabe984a6d89cc537cec9ce43b198d",username="1000",realm="sip .mycom pany.com",nonce="42025161902f6f6af11f01f0a93ad2877e606bbc",uri="sip:si
p.myco
mpany.com:5060" User-Agent: WATA200 Callctrl/1.5.1.1 MxSF/v3.2.6.26
SIP/2.0 100 Trying Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.0.180;branch=z9hG4bK88fcb4e76;rport=36323;received=65.77.37.2 To: Accxx sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060 From: Accxx sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060;tag=1eb7db0b344ac92 Call-ID: bd4da0ebfe98297597243a92b1b0f868@192.168.0.180 CSeq: 392547130 REGISTER Content-Length: 0
SIP/2.0 200 OK Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.0.180;branch=z9hG4bK88fcb4e76;rport=36323;received=65.77.37.2 To: Accxx sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060;tag=bf952ed189d8425c881b09485aa0b6f1 .5e63 From: Accxx sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060;tag=1eb7db0b344ac92 Call-ID: bd4da0ebfe98297597243a92b1b0f868@192.168.0.180 CSeq: 392547130 REGISTER Contact: sip:1000@65.77.37.2:36323;user=phone;expires=200, sip:1000@65.77.37.2:36235;user=phone;expires=3 Content-Length: 0
Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
-
Jain, Rajnish -
Jan Janak