9 Sep
2004
9 Sep
'04
4:10 a.m.
Thanks a lot for your help!
I want really to use strict-routing because I have a UA in rfc3261, and when
he make a call, he put the tag "LR" in the route fields of the ACK, and then
the call is cut after 20s.
Probably because my gateway Cisco (to PSTN) is only according to use RFC
2543.
Thats why I want the UA capably to work with IPTEL in strict routing.
I have the same problem with an ATA Cisco, but I have put an old firmware,
and that's work very good. (CODE 3.1.1 (LR) >> CODE 3.1.0 (NO LR)).
I have take the module rr_mod.c and after, how can I compile the module
rr???
Best Regards,
Nicolas RUIZ.
-----Message d'origine-----
De : Franz Edler [mailto:franz.edler@utanet.at]
Envoyé : jeudi 9 septembre 2004 06:09
À : 'Martin Koenig [toplink-plannet GmbH]'; 'RUIZ Nicolas'
Cc : serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
Objet : RE: [Serusers] Please help : how to disable losse routing ???
From: Martin Koenig [toplink-plannet GmbH] Sent: Wednesday, September 08,
this is not an SER problem. Loose routing is basically
done in the end
devices. All you can control on the server is whether the server should be
in the signalling proxy chain (record_route()) and whether you want to
process route-header-fields (loose_route()) or forward to the final
destinanation directly (t_relay() without loose_route()).
Sorry, this is not correct. The routing mechanism (loose or strict) has to
be followed by SIP proxies. Look at RFC 3261 para 16.6 step 6 where the
strict routing behavior is defined:
"If the copy contains a Route header field, the proxy MUST inspect the URI
in its first value. If that URI does not contain an lr parameter, the proxy
MUST ..."
But I expect that this behaviour is implemented in SER. In previous versions
of SER there was the possibility to force SER to do only strict routing.
This has been disabled now and in my previous comment I looked into the
documentation which is not updated accordingly and still mentions the
function strict_route(). But looking into the code of rr_mod.c you can read
as a comment:
"I do not want people to use strict routing so it is disabled by default,
you should always use loose routing, if you really need strict routing then
you can replace the last zeroes with REQUEST_ROUTE to enable strict_route
and record_route_strict. Don't do that unless you know what you are really
doing!"
As loose routing is the standard routing procedure as
defined in RFC3261,
strict routing is obsolete.
To be precise: strict routing is deprecated. If you have a strict router in
a SIP router chain the proxy forwarding to a strict router has to be aware
of this fact as mentioned above.
From: RUIZ Nicolas Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2004 9:10 PM
When I put strict_route at the place of loose_route, I
have an error.
(Module missing). Ser version is : 0.8.12.
What can I modify to apply strict routing only?
Sorry I did not check that this previous function has been eliminated. But
following the comment in rr_mod.c there is a possibility to force SER into
strict routing (see above) behavior. Look into the code. Than you also have
to use "record_route_strict" instead of "record_route".
But I have heavy doubts that this will help your problems. Do you really
know why you want to fall back to a deprecated routing behavior?
Franz
9 Sep
9 Sep
6:51 a.m.
New subject: [Serusers] Please help : how to disable losse routing ???
At 10:10 AM 9/9/2004, Nicolas RUIZ wrote:
Thanks a lot for your help!
I want really to use strict-routing because I have a UA in rfc3261, and when
he make a call, he put the tag "LR" in the route fields of the ACK, and then
the call is cut after 20s.
Probably because my gateway Cisco (to PSTN) is only according to use RFC
2543.
you are seeking error at a wrong place. SER's routing is compatible
with both loose and strict routing. I guess for some reason ACK
gets lost or is not accepted by Cisco.
-jiri
Thats why I want the UA capably to work with IPTEL in
strict routing.
I have the same problem with an ATA Cisco, but I have put an old firmware,
and that's work very good. (CODE 3.1.1 (LR) >> CODE 3.1.0 (NO LR)).
I have take the module rr_mod.c and after, how can I compile the module
rr???
Best Regards,
Nicolas RUIZ.
-----Message d'origine-----
De : Franz Edler [mailto:franz.edler@utanet.at]
Envoyé : jeudi 9 septembre 2004 06:09
À : 'Martin Koenig [toplink-plannet GmbH]'; 'RUIZ Nicolas'
Cc : serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
Objet : RE: [Serusers] Please help : how to disable losse routing ???
From: Martin Koenig [toplink-plannet GmbH] Sent: Wednesday, September 08,
--
Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/
this is not an SER problem. Loose routing is
basically done in the end
devices. All you can control on the server is whether the server should be
in the signalling proxy chain (record_route()) and whether you want to
process route-header-fields (loose_route()) or forward to the final
destinanation directly (t_relay() without loose_route()).
Sorry, this is not correct. The routing mechanism (loose or strict) has to
be followed by SIP proxies. Look at RFC 3261 para 16.6 step 6 where the
strict routing behavior is defined:
"If the copy contains a Route header field, the proxy MUST inspect the URI
in its first value. If that URI does not contain an lr parameter, the proxy
MUST ..."
But I expect that this behaviour is implemented in SER. In previous versions
of SER there was the possibility to force SER to do only strict routing.
This has been disabled now and in my previous comment I looked into the
documentation which is not updated accordingly and still mentions the
function strict_route(). But looking into the code of rr_mod.c you can read
as a comment:
"I do not want people to use strict routing so it is disabled by default,
you should always use loose routing, if you really need strict routing then
you can replace the last zeroes with REQUEST_ROUTE to enable strict_route
and record_route_strict. Don't do that unless you know what you are really
doing!"
As loose routing is the standard routing
procedure as defined in RFC3261,
strict routing is obsolete.
To be precise: strict routing is deprecated. If you have a strict router in
a SIP router chain the proxy forwarding to a strict router has to be aware
of this fact as mentioned above.
From: RUIZ Nicolas Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2004 9:10 PM
When I put strict_route at the place of
loose_route, I have an error.
(Module missing). Ser version is : 0.8.12.
What can I modify to apply strict routing only?
Sorry I did not check that this previous function has been eliminated. But
following the comment in rr_mod.c there is a possibility to force SER into
strict routing (see above) behavior. Look into the code. Than you also have
to use "record_route_strict" instead of "record_route".
But I have heavy doubts that this will help your problems. Do you really
know why you want to fall back to a deprecated routing behavior?
Franz
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
13 Sep
13 Sep
10:41 a.m.
New subject: [Serusers] Please help : how to disable losse routing ???
Thanks for your help,
That's right, My gateway cisco is not according to RFC 3261, and that's why
, I want to use only strict-routing.
And if I want to use "record_route_strict", I have to rebuild the module rr
or not?
**************************
MODULE_VERSION;
static int mod_init(void);
static int str_fixup(void** param, int param_no);
/*
* Exported functions
*/
/*
* I do not want people to use strict routing so it is disabled by default,
* you should always use loose routing, if you really need strict routing
then
* you can replace the last zeroes with REQUEST_ROUTE to enable strict_route
and
* record_route_strict. Don't do that unless you know what you are really
doing !
* Oh, BTW, have I mentioned already that you shouldn't use strict routing ?
*/
static cmd_export_t cmds[] = {
{"loose_route", loose_route, 0, 0, REQUEST_ROUTE},
{"record_route", record_route, 0, 0, REQUEST_ROUTE},
{"record_route_preset", record_route_preset, 1, str_fixup, REQUEST_ROUTE},
{"record_route_strict" , record_route_strict, 0, 0, 0 },
{0, 0, 0, 0, 0}
};
**************************
Thanks a lot
Regards,
Nicolas RUIZ
-----Message d'origine-----
De : Jiri Kuthan [mailto:jiri@iptel.org]
Envoyé : jeudi 9 septembre 2004 12:51
À : Nicolas RUIZ; franz.edler(a)utanet.at; 'Martin Koenig [toplink-plannet
GmbH]'
Cc : serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
Objet : RE: [Serusers] Please help : how to disable losse routing ???
At 10:10 AM 9/9/2004, Nicolas RUIZ wrote:
versions
Thanks a lot for your help!
I want really to use strict-routing because I have a UA in rfc3261, and
when
he make a call, he put the tag "LR" in the
route fields of the ACK, and
then
the call is cut after 20s.
Probably because my gateway Cisco (to PSTN) is only according to use RFC
2543.
you are seeking error at a wrong place. SER's routing is compatible
with both loose and strict routing. I guess for some reason ACK
gets lost or is not accepted by Cisco.
-jiri
Thats why I want the UA capably to work with IPTEL in
strict routing.
I have the same problem with an ATA Cisco, but I have put an old firmware,
and that's work very good. (CODE 3.1.1 (LR) >> CODE 3.1.0 (NO LR)).
I have take the module rr_mod.c and after, how can I compile the module
rr???
Best Regards,
Nicolas RUIZ.
-----Message d'origine-----
De : Franz Edler [mailto:franz.edler@utanet.at]
Envoyé : jeudi 9 septembre 2004 06:09
À : 'Martin Koenig [toplink-plannet GmbH]'; 'RUIZ Nicolas'
Cc : serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
Objet : RE: [Serusers] Please help : how to disable losse routing ???
From: Martin Koenig [toplink-plannet GmbH] Sent: Wednesday, September 08,
> this is not an SER problem. Loose routing is basically done in the end
> devices. All you can control on the server is whether the server should
be
in the
signalling proxy chain (record_route()) and whether you want to
process route-header-fields (loose_route()) or forward to the final
destinanation directly (t_relay() without loose_route()).
Sorry, this is not correct. The routing mechanism (loose or strict) has to
be followed by SIP proxies. Look at RFC 3261 para 16.6 step 6 where the
strict routing behavior is defined:
"If the copy contains a Route header field, the proxy MUST inspect the URI
in its first value. If that URI does not contain an lr parameter, the proxy
MUST ..."
But I expect that this behaviour is implemented in SER. In previous of SER there was the possibility to force SER to do
only strict routing.
This has been disabled now and in my previous comment I looked into the
documentation which is not updated accordingly and still mentions the
function strict_route(). But looking into the code of rr_mod.c you can read
as a comment:
"I do not want people to use strict routing so it is disabled by default,
you should always use loose routing, if you really need strict routing then
you can replace the last zeroes with REQUEST_ROUTE to enable strict_route
and record_route_strict. Don't do that unless you know what you are really
doing!"
--
Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/
As loose routing is the standard routing
procedure as defined in RFC3261,
strict routing is obsolete.
To be precise: strict routing is deprecated. If you have a strict router in
a SIP router chain the proxy forwarding to a strict router has to be aware
of this fact as mentioned above.
From: RUIZ Nicolas Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2004 9:10 PM
When I put strict_route at the place of
loose_route, I have an error.
(Module missing). Ser version is : 0.8.12.
What can I modify to apply strict routing only?
Sorry I did not check that this previous function has been eliminated. But
following the comment in rr_mod.c there is a possibility to force SER into
strict routing (see above) behavior. Look into the code. Than you also have
to use "record_route_strict" instead of "record_route".
But I have heavy doubts that this will help your problems. Do you really
know why you want to fall back to a deprecated routing behavior?
Franz
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers 
14 Sep
14 Sep
5:44 a.m.
New subject: [Serusers] Please help : how to disable losse routing ???
On 13-09 16:41, Nicolas RUIZ wrote:
Thanks for your help,
That's right, My gateway cisco is not according to RFC 3261, and that's why
, I want to use only strict-routing.
Loose routing is backwards compatible, it should work even if the
gateway does not support loose routing. The problem must be somewhere
else, presumably one of the end-points is broken.
And if I want to use "record_route_strict",
I have to rebuild the module rr
or not?
Yes.
Jan.
6:03 a.m.
New subject: [Serusers] Please help : how to disable losse routing ???
OK,
Thanks a lot for your support
Best regards
Nicolas RUIZ
VIVACTION
FRANCE, PARIS
-----Message d'origine-----
De : Jan Janak [mailto:jan@iptel.org]
Envoyé : mardi 14 septembre 2004 11:44
A : Nicolas RUIZ
Cc : 'Jiri Kuthan'; franz.edler(a)utanet.at; 'Martin Koenig [toplink-plannet
GmbH]'; serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
Objet : Re: [Serusers] Please help : how to disable losse routing ???
On 13-09 16:41, Nicolas RUIZ wrote:
Thanks for your help,
That's right, My gateway cisco is not according to RFC 3261, and that's
why
, I want to use only strict-routing.
Loose routing is backwards compatible, it should work even if the
gateway does not support loose routing. The problem must be somewhere
else, presumably one of the end-points is broken.
And if I want to use "record_route_strict",
I have to rebuild the module
rr
or not?
Yes.
Jan.
16 Sep
16 Sep
4:48 a.m.
New subject: [Serusers] Please help : how to disable losse routing ???
I'm seeing some strange loose routing behaviour with my testing Cisco 7960
phone. I'm trying to put ngreps on the list as soon as i have the time.
Maybe this is a cisco-specific problem?
Regards,
Martin
-----Original Message-----
From: Nicolas RUIZ [mailto:nruiz@vivaction.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2004 12:03 PM
To: 'Jan Janak'
Cc: 'Jiri Kuthan'; franz.edler(a)utanet.at; 'Martin Koenig
[toplink-plannet GmbH]'; serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
Subject: RE: [Serusers] Please help : how to disable losse routing ???
OK,
Thanks a lot for your support
Best regards
Nicolas RUIZ
VIVACTION
FRANCE, PARIS
-----Message d'origine-----
De : Jan Janak [mailto:jan@iptel.org]
Envoyé : mardi 14 septembre 2004 11:44
A : Nicolas RUIZ
Cc : 'Jiri Kuthan'; franz.edler(a)utanet.at; 'Martin Koenig
[toplink-plannet
GmbH]'; serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
Objet : Re: [Serusers] Please help : how to disable losse routing ???
On 13-09 16:41, Nicolas RUIZ wrote:
Thanks for your help,
That's right, My gateway cisco is not according to RFC
3261, and that's
why
, I want to use only strict-routing.
Loose routing is backwards compatible, it should work even if the
gateway does not support loose routing. The problem must be
somewhere
else, presumably one of the end-points is broken.
And if I want to use
"record_route_strict", I have to
rebuild the module
rr
or not?
Yes.
Jan.
5:03 a.m.
New subject: [Serusers] Please help : how to disable losse routing ???
I am using 7960 myself and do not have any problems, please send ngrep
dumps.
Jan.
On 16-09 10:48, Martin Koenig wrote:
I'm seeing some strange loose routing behaviour
with my testing Cisco 7960
phone. I'm trying to put ngreps on the list as soon as i have the time.
Maybe this is a cisco-specific problem?
Regards,
Martin
-----Original Message-----
From: Nicolas RUIZ [mailto:nruiz@vivaction.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2004 12:03 PM
To: 'Jan Janak'
Cc: 'Jiri Kuthan'; franz.edler(a)utanet.at; 'Martin Koenig
[toplink-plannet GmbH]'; serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
Subject: RE: [Serusers] Please help : how to disable losse routing ???
OK,
Thanks a lot for your support
Best regards
Nicolas RUIZ
VIVACTION
FRANCE, PARIS
-----Message d'origine-----
De : Jan Janak [mailto:jan@iptel.org]
Envoyé : mardi 14 septembre 2004 11:44
A : Nicolas RUIZ
Cc : 'Jiri Kuthan'; franz.edler(a)utanet.at; 'Martin Koenig
[toplink-plannet
GmbH]'; serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
Objet : Re: [Serusers] Please help : how to disable losse routing ???
On 13-09 16:41, Nicolas RUIZ wrote:
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers Thanks for your help,
That's right, My gateway cisco is not according to RFC
3261, and that's
why
, I want to use only strict-routing.
Loose routing is backwards compatible, it should work even if the
gateway does not support loose routing. The problem must be
somewhere
else, presumably one of the end-points is broken.
And if I want to use
"record_route_strict", I have to
rebuild the module
rr
or not?
Yes.
Jan.
7:02 a.m.
New subject: [Serusers] Please help : how to disable losse routing ???
Hello,
Ngrep:
Hello,
ngrep dump:
#
U 2004/09/16 12:42:01.791105 4.5.6.156:5060 -> 1.2.3.67:5070
SIP/2.0 200 OK.
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 1.2.3.67:5070;branch=z9hG4bK0a65d941.
From: "tpl-dev"
<sip:t02@example.com>;tag=0006283e0a68003a5a99de34-50ace3d6.
To: <sip:00358400589247@example.com>;tag=1c16103.
Call-ID: 0006283e-0a680037-0dc88799-351df346(a)1.2.3.67.
CSeq: 102 INVITE.
Contact: <sip:00358400589247@11.22.33.66;user=phone>.
Record-Route:
<sip:+358400589247@1.2.3.68:5070;ftag=0006283e0a68003a5a99de34-50ace3d6;lr>,
<sip:+358400589247@1.2.3.69:5070;ftag=0006283e0a68003a5a99de34-50ace3d6;lr>,
<sip:00358400589247@4.5.6.156;ftag=0006283e0a68003a5a99de34-50ace3d6;lr>.
Supported: em,timer,replaces,100rel.
Allow:
REGISTER,OPTIONS,INVITE,ACK,CANCEL,BYE,NOTIFY,PRACK,REFER,INFO,SUBSCRIBE.
Server: Audiocodes-Sip-Gateway-tpl_voip_gw1/v.4.20.354.574.
Content-Type: application/sdp.
Content-Length: 208.
.
v=0.
o=AudiocodesGW 49132 44576 IN IP4 11.22.33.66.
s=Phone-Call.
c=IN IP4 11.22.33.66.
t=0 0.
m=audio 6000 RTP/AVP 8 96.
a=rtpmap:8 pcma/8000.
a=rtpmap:96 telephone-event/8000.
a=fmtp:96 0-15.
a=ptime:20.
#
U 2004/09/16 12:42:02.008739 1.2.3.67:5070 -> 4.5.6.156:5060
ACK
sip:00358400589247@4.5.6.156:5060;ftag=0006283e0a68003a5a99de34-50ace3d6;lr
SIP/2.0.
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 1.2.3.67:5070;branch=z9hG4bK2c7403dc.
From: "tpl-dev"
<sip:t02@example.com>;tag=0006283e0a68003a5a99de34-50ace3d6.
To: <sip:00358400589247@example.com>;tag=1c16103.
Call-ID: 0006283e-0a680037-0dc88799-351df346(a)1.2.3.67.
CSeq: 102 ACK.
User-Agent: CSCO/7.
Route:
<sip:+358400589247@1.2.3.69:5070;ftag=0006283e0a68003a5a99de34-50ace3d6;lr>,
<sip:+358400589247@1.2.3.68:5070;ftag=0006283e0a68003a5a99de34-50ace3d6;lr>,
<sip:00358400589247@11.22.33.66:5060;user=phone>.
Content-Length: 0.
.
#
U 2004/09/16 12:43:55.175413 1.2.3.67:5070 -> 4.5.6.156:5060
BYE
sip:00358400589247@4.5.6.156:5060;ftag=0006283e0a68003a5a99de34-50ace3d6;lr
SIP/2.0.
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 1.2.3.67:5070;branch=z9hG4bK6c7c16c5.
From: "tpl-dev"
<sip:t02@example.com>;tag=0006283e0a68003a5a99de34-50ace3d6.
To: <sip:00358400589247@example.com>;tag=1c16103.
Call-ID: 0006283e-0a680037-0dc88799-351df346(a)1.2.3.67.
CSeq: 103 BYE.
User-Agent: CSCO/7.
Content-Length: 0.
Route:
<sip:+358400589247@1.2.3.69:5070;ftag=0006283e0a68003a5a99de34-50ace3d6;lr>,
<sip:+358400589247@1.2.3.68:5070;ftag=0006283e0a68003a5a99de34-50ace3d6;lr>,
<sip:00358400589247@11.22.33.66:5060;user=phone>.
.
end dump
1.2.3.67 is the cisco 7960
4.5.6.156 is the local proxy
1.2.3.68 and .69 are proxies along the way
11.22.33.66 is the pstn gateway
As you can see, the cisco receives an ok with record route header field, the
last entry 4.5.6.156:5060. Contact 11.22.33.66:5060 is the Gateway.
In my understanding for proper loose routing the ACK and also the following
bye should be sent like this:
ACK sip:00358400589247@11.22.33.66:5060 (the final destination)
Route:
<sip:00358400589247@4.5.6.156:5060;lr>,<sip:+358400589247@1.2.3.69:5070;lr>,
<sip:+358400589247@1.2.3.68:5070;lr>
Which is the reverse order of the record route from the 200 ok.
But instead the Cisco sends:
ACK sip:00358400589247@4.5.6.156:5060 (the next hop)
Route:
<sip:+358400589247@1.2.3.69:5070;lr>,<sip:+358400589247@1.2.3.68:5070;lr>,
<sip:00358400589247@11.22.33.66:5060> (the final destination).
This looks like strict routing to me.
Regards,
Martin
-----Original Message-----
From: Jan Janak [mailto:jan@iptel.org]
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2004 11:03 AM
To: Martin Koenig
Cc: nruiz(a)vivaction.com; serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
Subject: Re: [Serusers] Please help : how to disable losse routing ???
I am using 7960 myself and do not have any problems, please send ngrep
dumps.
Jan.
On 16-09 10:48, Martin Koenig wrote:
I'm seeing some strange loose routing
behaviour with my
testing Cisco 7960
phone. I'm trying to put ngreps on the list
as soon as i
have the time.
Maybe this is a cisco-specific problem?
Regards,
Martin
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nicolas RUIZ [mailto:nruiz@vivaction.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2004 12:03 PM
> To: 'Jan Janak'
> Cc: 'Jiri Kuthan'; franz.edler(a)utanet.at; 'Martin Koenig
> [toplink-plannet GmbH]'; serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
> Subject: RE: [Serusers] Please help : how to disable
losse routing ???
>
> OK,
>
> Thanks a lot for your support
>
> Best regards
>
> Nicolas RUIZ
> VIVACTION
> FRANCE, PARIS
>
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Jan Janak [mailto:jan@iptel.org]
> Envoyé : mardi 14 septembre 2004 11:44
> A : Nicolas RUIZ
> Cc : 'Jiri Kuthan'; franz.edler(a)utanet.at; 'Martin Koenig
> [toplink-plannet
> GmbH]'; serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
> Objet : Re: [Serusers] Please help : how to disable losse
routing ???
>
>
> On 13-09 16:41, Nicolas RUIZ wrote:
> > Thanks for your help,
> >
> > That's right, My gateway cisco is not according to RFC
> 3261, and that's
> why
> > , I want to use only strict-routing.
>
> Loose routing is backwards compatible, it should work
even if the
gateway
does not support loose routing. The problem must be
somewhere
else, presumably one of the end-points is broken.
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers And if I want to use
"record_route_strict", I have to
rebuild the module
rr
or not?
Yes.
Jan.
3:27 p.m.
New subject: [Serusers] Please help : how to disable losse routing ???
On 16-09 13:02, Martin Koenig wrote:
Hello,
Ngrep:
Hello,
ngrep dump:
#
U 2004/09/16 12:42:01.791105 4.5.6.156:5060 -> 1.2.3.67:5070
SIP/2.0 200 OK.
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 1.2.3.67:5070;branch=z9hG4bK0a65d941.
From: "tpl-dev"
<sip:t02@example.com>;tag=0006283e0a68003a5a99de34-50ace3d6.
To: <sip:00358400589247@example.com>;tag=1c16103.
Call-ID: 0006283e-0a680037-0dc88799-351df346(a)1.2.3.67.
CSeq: 102 INVITE.
Contact: <sip:00358400589247@11.22.33.66;user=phone>.
Record-Route:
<sip:+358400589247@1.2.3.68:5070;ftag=0006283e0a68003a5a99de34-50ace3d6;lr>,
<sip:+358400589247@1.2.3.69:5070;ftag=0006283e0a68003a5a99de34-50ace3d6;lr>,
<sip:00358400589247@4.5.6.156;ftag=0006283e0a68003a5a99de34-50ace3d6;lr>.
Supported: em,timer,replaces,100rel.
Allow:
REGISTER,OPTIONS,INVITE,ACK,CANCEL,BYE,NOTIFY,PRACK,REFER,INFO,SUBSCRIBE.
Server: Audiocodes-Sip-Gateway-tpl_voip_gw1/v.4.20.354.574.
Content-Type: application/sdp.
Content-Length: 208.
.
v=0.
o=AudiocodesGW 49132 44576 IN IP4 11.22.33.66.
s=Phone-Call.
c=IN IP4 11.22.33.66.
t=0 0.
m=audio 6000 RTP/AVP 8 96.
a=rtpmap:8 pcma/8000.
a=rtpmap:96 telephone-event/8000.
a=fmtp:96 0-15.
a=ptime:20.
#
U 2004/09/16 12:42:02.008739 1.2.3.67:5070 -> 4.5.6.156:5060
ACK
sip:00358400589247@4.5.6.156:5060;ftag=0006283e0a68003a5a99de34-50ace3d6;lr
SIP/2.0.
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 1.2.3.67:5070;branch=z9hG4bK2c7403dc.
From: "tpl-dev"
<sip:t02@example.com>;tag=0006283e0a68003a5a99de34-50ace3d6.
To: <sip:00358400589247@example.com>;tag=1c16103.
Call-ID: 0006283e-0a680037-0dc88799-351df346(a)1.2.3.67.
CSeq: 102 ACK.
User-Agent: CSCO/7.
Route:
<sip:+358400589247@1.2.3.69:5070;ftag=0006283e0a68003a5a99de34-50ace3d6;lr>,
<sip:+358400589247@1.2.3.68:5070;ftag=0006283e0a68003a5a99de34-50ace3d6;lr>,
<sip:00358400589247@11.22.33.66:5060;user=phone>.
Content-Length: 0.
.
#
U 2004/09/16 12:43:55.175413 1.2.3.67:5070 -> 4.5.6.156:5060
BYE
sip:00358400589247@4.5.6.156:5060;ftag=0006283e0a68003a5a99de34-50ace3d6;lr
SIP/2.0.
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 1.2.3.67:5070;branch=z9hG4bK6c7c16c5.
From: "tpl-dev"
<sip:t02@example.com>;tag=0006283e0a68003a5a99de34-50ace3d6.
To: <sip:00358400589247@example.com>;tag=1c16103.
Call-ID: 0006283e-0a680037-0dc88799-351df346(a)1.2.3.67.
CSeq: 103 BYE.
User-Agent: CSCO/7.
Content-Length: 0.
Route:
<sip:+358400589247@1.2.3.69:5070;ftag=0006283e0a68003a5a99de34-50ace3d6;lr>,
<sip:+358400589247@1.2.3.68:5070;ftag=0006283e0a68003a5a99de34-50ace3d6;lr>,
<sip:00358400589247@11.22.33.66:5060;user=phone>.
.
end dump
1.2.3.67 is the cisco 7960
4.5.6.156 is the local proxy
1.2.3.68 and .69 are proxies along the way
11.22.33.66 is the pstn gateway
As you can see, the cisco receives an ok with record route header field, the
last entry 4.5.6.156:5060. Contact 11.22.33.66:5060 is the Gateway.
In my understanding for proper loose routing the ACK and also the following
bye should be sent like this:
ACK sip:00358400589247@11.22.33.66:5060 (the final destination)
Route:
<sip:00358400589247@4.5.6.156:5060;lr>,<sip:+358400589247@1.2.3.69:5070;lr>,
<sip:+358400589247@1.2.3.68:5070;lr>
Which is the reverse order of the record route from the 200 ok.
But instead the Cisco sends:
ACK sip:00358400589247@4.5.6.156:5060 (the next hop)
Route:
<sip:+358400589247@1.2.3.69:5070;lr>,<sip:+358400589247@1.2.3.68:5070;lr>,
<sip:00358400589247@11.22.33.66:5060> (the final destination).
This looks like strict routing to me.
Yes that is correct, it implements strict routing (properly), there is
nothing wrong with it, the proxy server can detect it and handle the
message properly. Loose routers are backwards compatible with strict
routers.
Jan.
8:47 a.m.
New subject: [Serusers] Please help : how to disable losse routing ???
If I have a Cisco Ip phone 7940 with the last code (Loose routing : RFC
3261), a proxy registar Linux IPTEL ser (RFC 3261) and a Gateway Cisco
AS5300 (IOS Code 12.3(6a)).
And I have see that the IOS code of my gateway AS5300 is not according to
RFC3261.
And my problem, is :
My cisco IPPHONE with Loose routing mode, send the invite to the proxy, and
the proxy send the invite to the gateway.
But when the IPPHONE send the ACK, he send with this request line :
REQUEST-LINE : ACK sip:0675313859@80.118.128.1:5060 SIP/2.0
And the IP@ is my gateway cisco, and i think, with my AS, i cannot USE SIP
RFC 3261??? YES OR NOT???
And that, i want to set iptel to do only strict routing.
thanks a lot for your help.
Nicolas RUIZ
CONF IPTEL SER:
#modparam("rr", "enable_full_lr", 1)
# ------------------------- request routing logic -------------------
# main routing logic
route{
# initial sanity checks -- messages with
# max_forwards==0, or excessively long requests
if (!mf_process_maxfwd_header("10")) {
sl_send_reply("483","Too Many Hops");
break;
};
if ( msg:len > max_len ) {
sl_send_reply("513", "Message too big");
break;
};
# we record-route all messages -- to make sure that
# subsequent messages will go through our proxy; that's
# particularly good if upstream and downstream entities
# use different transport protocol
record_route();
# loose-route processing
if (loose_route()) {
t_relay();
break;
};
-----Message d'origine-----
De : Jan Janak [mailto:jan@iptel.org]
Envoyé : jeudi 16 septembre 2004 11:03
A : Martin Koenig
Cc : nruiz(a)vivaction.com; serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
Objet : Re: [Serusers] Please help : how to disable losse routing ???
I am using 7960 myself and do not have any problems, please send ngrep
dumps.
Jan.
On 16-09 10:48, Martin Koenig wrote:
I'm seeing some strange loose routing behaviour
with my testing Cisco 7960
phone. I'm trying to put ngreps on the list as soon as i have the time.
Maybe this is a cisco-specific problem?
Regards,
Martin
-----Original Message-----
From: Nicolas RUIZ [mailto:nruiz@vivaction.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2004 12:03 PM
To: 'Jan Janak'
Cc: 'Jiri Kuthan'; franz.edler(a)utanet.at; 'Martin Koenig
[toplink-plannet GmbH]'; serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
Subject: RE: [Serusers] Please help : how to disable losse routing ???
OK,
Thanks a lot for your support
Best regards
Nicolas RUIZ
VIVACTION
FRANCE, PARIS
-----Message d'origine-----
De : Jan Janak [mailto:jan@iptel.org]
Envoyé : mardi 14 septembre 2004 11:44
A : Nicolas RUIZ
Cc : 'Jiri Kuthan'; franz.edler(a)utanet.at; 'Martin Koenig
[toplink-plannet
GmbH]'; serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
Objet : Re: [Serusers] Please help : how to disable losse routing ???
On 13-09 16:41, Nicolas RUIZ wrote:
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers Thanks for your help,
That's right, My gateway cisco is not according to RFC
3261, and that's
why
, I want to use only strict-routing.
Loose routing is backwards compatible, it should work even if the
gateway does not support loose routing. The problem must be
somewhere
else, presumably one of the end-points is broken.
And if I want to use
"record_route_strict", I have to
rebuild the module
rr
or not?
Yes.
Jan.
6 a.m.
New subject: [Serusers] Please help : how to disable losse routing ???
* Martin Koenig <martin.koenig(a)toplink-plannet.de> [040916 10:49]:
I'm seeing some strange loose routing behaviour
with my testing Cisco 7960
phone. I'm trying to put ngreps on the list as soon as i have the time.
Maybe this is a cisco-specific problem?
I've got a couple Cisco 7960's no problem here.
-Atle
Regards,
Martin
-----Original Message-----
From: Nicolas RUIZ [mailto:nruiz@vivaction.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2004 12:03 PM
To: 'Jan Janak'
Cc: 'Jiri Kuthan'; franz.edler(a)utanet.at; 'Martin Koenig
[toplink-plannet GmbH]'; serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
Subject: RE: [Serusers] Please help : how to disable losse routing ???
OK,
Thanks a lot for your support
Best regards
Nicolas RUIZ
VIVACTION
FRANCE, PARIS
-----Message d'origine-----
De : Jan Janak [mailto:jan@iptel.org]
Envoy? : mardi 14 septembre 2004 11:44
A : Nicolas RUIZ
Cc : 'Jiri Kuthan'; franz.edler(a)utanet.at; 'Martin Koenig
[toplink-plannet
GmbH]'; serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
Objet : Re: [Serusers] Please help : how to disable losse routing ???
On 13-09 16:41, Nicolas RUIZ wrote:
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
Thanks for your help,
That's right, My gateway cisco is not according to RFC
3261, and that's
why
, I want to use only strict-routing.
Loose routing is backwards compatible, it should work even if the
gateway does not support loose routing. The problem must be
somewhere
else, presumably one of the end-points is broken.
And if I want to use
"record_route_strict", I have to
rebuild the module
rr
or not?
Yes.
Jan.
7232
days inactive
7239
days old
10 comments
6 participants
participants (6)
-
'Jan Janak' -
Atle Samuelsen -
Jan Janak
-
Jiri Kuthan -
Martin Koenig -
Nicolas RUIZ