Re: [Serusers] re: CONTACT field malformed in a 302 reply - sr-users

27 Mar 2007

Contact from SER is NOT malformed. It is 100% compliant to the RFC3261 spec
(see sections 20.10 and 25 of RFC 3261). in the grammar, contact expands
to name-addr|addr-spec, with addr-spec being URI. Exapmles in the addr-spec
for also appear throughout the spec. Thus I suggest that the softswitch
vendor makes himself familiar with this document. As a workaround you may
wish trying some manual tricks to form a reply which will make the UAC
equipment happy (append_to_reply).

-jiri

p.s. interestingly, gl_redirect must be your own feature, so if you developed
some extra SER code updating the way of generating Contacts in 3xx should not
be a big deal. I just occur to think that doing it in public SER doesn't make
much sense, because if there are multiple ways to do things in SIP, whichever you
choose, you will find someone who is silly enough only to accept the opposite
one :-)

At 20:57 26/03/2007, Jignesh Gandhi wrote:
...
 Hello,

I am using SER as a redirect server.
Recently I came across an issue where the 302 sent back by SER is
not liked by a soft switch. Particularly , the format of the CONTACT 
field according to the softswitch.. 

Here is an excerpt of the 302 reply send back ...

Session Initiation Protocol
    Status-Line: SIP/2.0 302 MovedTemporarily
        Status-Code: 302
        Resent Packet: True
        Suspected resend of frame: 73
    Message Header
        To:
<<mailto:sip:12345@172.20.20.46>sip:12345@172.20.20.46>;tag=b27e1a1d33761e85846fc98f5f3a7e58.dfa5
            SIP to address: <mailto:sip:12345@172.20.20.46>sip:12345@172.20.20.46
            SIP tag: b27e1a1d33761e85846fc98f5f3a7e58.dfa5
        From:
<http://172.20.20.46>172.20.20.46<<mailto:sip:12345@172.20.20.46>sip:12345@172.20.20.46>;tag=161dda6e
            SIP Display info: <http://172.20.20.46>172.20.20.46
            SIP from address: <mailto:sip:12345@172.20.20.46>sip:12345@172.20.20.46
            SIP tag: 161dda6e
        Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
<http://10.99.99.140:9585>10.99.99.140:9585;branch=z9hG4bK-d87543-730866470-1--d87543-;rport=9585
        Call-ID: 95239a63f0347c53
        CSeq: 1 INVITE
        Contact: sip:12345@172.20.20.37:5060
        Server: Sip EXpress router (0.8.14 (i386/linux))
        Content-Length: 0
        Warning: 392 <http://172.20.20.46:5060>172.20.20.46:5060 "Noisy
feedback tells:  pid=9550 req_src_ip=<http://10.99.99.140>10.99.99.140
req_src_port=9585 in_uri=<mailto:sip:12345@172.20.20.46>sip:12345@172.20.20.46
out_uri=sip:12345@172.20.20.37:5060 via_cnt==1

the softswitch is wanting the contact field with <sip:xxxx@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:5060>
like a FROM or TO URI.

Here is ser.cfg part that does the sl_send_reply();

  # do a stateless redirect, if return code is correct
    if (method=="INVITE")
    {
        xlog("L_INFO", "SourceIP <%is> \n");
        xlog("L_INFO", "From-uri<%fu>, r-uri <%ru> \n");
        if (!gl_redirect()) 
        {
            sl_send_reply("480", "TemporarilyUnavailable");
            xlog("L_WARN", "Sending a 480 response with r-uri
<%ru>\n");
            break;
        }
        else
        {
            sl_send_reply("302", "MovedTemporarily");
            xlog("L_DBG", "Sending a 302 response with r-uri
<%ru>\n");
            break; 
        }
    };

Any help is appreciated. 

thanks,
-- 
Jignesh Gandhi
<mailto:jigpgandhi@gmail.com>jigpgandhi@gmail.com 
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
Serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers 

--
Jiri Kuthan            http://iptel.org/~jiri/