Hi,
we are running a Registrar server with 4.4.3, the registrar module is configured with the following parameters:
modparam("registrar", "max_contacts", 50) modparam("registrar", "use_path", 1) modparam("registrar", "path_mode", 0) modparam("registrar", "path_use_received", 1) modparam("registrar", "received_avp", "$(avp(i:801))") modparam("registrar", "default_expires", 600) modparam("registrar", "min_expires", 60) modparam("registrar", "max_expires", 600) modparam("registrar", "gruu_enabled", 0)
A customer has configured 4 phones with the same username. Normally, all 4 phones would be visible in the location database, and incoming calls would fork out to all 4 phones. However, only one of the devices is always online, the others always replace each other on each registration.
Client details: * All phones are snom 715 devices with the same firmware version. * All phones sit behind the same router.
Registrations: client 1: * Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.208.91:35812;branch=z9hG4bK-4q0mmxgu6gm7;rport * Contact: sip:1794388e3@192.168.208.91:35812;line=gicode6v;reg-id=1;q=1.0;+sip.instance="urn:uuid:0a14174a-77be-424c-864e-0004137F1C9D"
client 2: * Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.208.90:41331;branch=z9hG4bK-3cbxdvbmk0di;rport * Contact: sip:1794388e3@192.168.208.90:41331;line=0j6veso8;reg-id=1;q=1.0;+sip.instance="urn:uuid:0a14174a-77be-424c-864e-0004137F1C9D"
client 3: * Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.208.92:5360;branch=z9hG4bK-4drsogakez94;rport * Contact: sip:1794388e3@192.168.208.92:5360;line=0n7jfzih;reg-id=1;q=1.0;+sip.instance="urn:uuid:0a14174a-77be-424c-864e-0004137F1C9D"
client 4: * Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.208.93:5260;branch=z9hG4bK-1ci0qia3yxyl;rport * Contact: sip:1794388e3@192.168.208.93:5260;line=mh9sgxa1;reg-id=1;q=1.0
Only client 4 is reachable all the time. The other 3 clients replace other registrations.
So after client 1 registers, the contacts returned in the 200 OK looks like this:
Contact: sip:1794388e3@192.168.208.91:35812;line=gicode6v;q=1;expires=600;received="sip:1.2.3.4:6411";+sip.instance="urn:uuid:0a14174a-77be-424c-864e-0004137F1C9D";reg-id=1, sip:1794388e3@192.168.208.93:5260;line=mh9sgxa1;q=1;expires=303;received="sip:1.2.3.4:8923"
And after client 2 registers, the contacts returned in the 200 OK looks like this:
Contact: sip:1794388e3@192.168.208.90:41331;line=0j6veso8;q=1;expires=600;received="sip:1.2.3.4:49061";+sip.instance="urn:uuid:0a14174a-77be-424c-864e-0004137F1C9D";reg-id=1, sip:1794388e3@192.168.208.93:5260;line=mh9sgxa1;q=1;expires=301;received="sip:1.2.3.4:8923"
So you see, one contact stays the same, the other one gets replaced.
Does anybody know what could cause this kind of behavior? I think, it could be GRUU. I see that those three clients all send the same GRUU parameter. From my understanding, this UUID should be different from client to client. I don't know whether this is a bug in the snom firmware always sending the same GRUU UUID or whether som "intelligent" SIP aware router is putting this in the Contact header. However, since we have disabled gruu for the registrar module (see above), I think, Kamailio should ignore it.
Ideas? Thanks in advance.
Best Regards, Sebastian
Hello,
what is the matching mode for usrloc module:
https://www.kamailio.org/docs/modules/stable/modules/usrloc.html#usrloc.p.ma...
Cheers, Daniel
On 27/09/16 15:42, Sebastian Damm wrote:
Hi,
we are running a Registrar server with 4.4.3, the registrar module is configured with the following parameters:
modparam("registrar", "max_contacts", 50) modparam("registrar", "use_path", 1) modparam("registrar", "path_mode", 0) modparam("registrar", "path_use_received", 1) modparam("registrar", "received_avp", "$(avp(i:801))") modparam("registrar", "default_expires", 600) modparam("registrar", "min_expires", 60) modparam("registrar", "max_expires", 600) modparam("registrar", "gruu_enabled", 0)
A customer has configured 4 phones with the same username. Normally, all 4 phones would be visible in the location database, and incoming calls would fork out to all 4 phones. However, only one of the devices is always online, the others always replace each other on each registration.
Client details:
- All phones are snom 715 devices with the same firmware version.
- All phones sit behind the same router.
Registrations: client 1:
- Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.208.91:35812;branch=z9hG4bK-4q0mmxgu6gm7;rport
- Contact: sip:1794388e3@192.168.208.91:35812;line=gicode6v;reg-id=1;q=1.0;+sip.instance="urn:uuid:0a14174a-77be-424c-864e-0004137F1C9D"
client 2:
- Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.208.90:41331;branch=z9hG4bK-3cbxdvbmk0di;rport
- Contact: sip:1794388e3@192.168.208.90:41331;line=0j6veso8;reg-id=1;q=1.0;+sip.instance="urn:uuid:0a14174a-77be-424c-864e-0004137F1C9D"
client 3:
- Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.208.92:5360;branch=z9hG4bK-4drsogakez94;rport
- Contact: sip:1794388e3@192.168.208.92:5360;line=0n7jfzih;reg-id=1;q=1.0;+sip.instance="urn:uuid:0a14174a-77be-424c-864e-0004137F1C9D"
client 4:
- Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.208.93:5260;branch=z9hG4bK-1ci0qia3yxyl;rport
- Contact: sip:1794388e3@192.168.208.93:5260;line=mh9sgxa1;reg-id=1;q=1.0
Only client 4 is reachable all the time. The other 3 clients replace other registrations.
So after client 1 registers, the contacts returned in the 200 OK looks like this:
Contact: sip:1794388e3@192.168.208.91:35812;line=gicode6v;q=1;expires=600;received="sip:1.2.3.4:6411";+sip.instance="urn:uuid:0a14174a-77be-424c-864e-0004137F1C9D";reg-id=1, sip:1794388e3@192.168.208.93:5260;line=mh9sgxa1;q=1;expires=303;received="sip:1.2.3.4:8923"
And after client 2 registers, the contacts returned in the 200 OK looks like this:
Contact: sip:1794388e3@192.168.208.90:41331;line=0j6veso8;q=1;expires=600;received="sip:1.2.3.4:49061";+sip.instance="urn:uuid:0a14174a-77be-424c-864e-0004137F1C9D";reg-id=1, sip:1794388e3@192.168.208.93:5260;line=mh9sgxa1;q=1;expires=301;received="sip:1.2.3.4:8923"
So you see, one contact stays the same, the other one gets replaced.
Does anybody know what could cause this kind of behavior? I think, it could be GRUU. I see that those three clients all send the same GRUU parameter. From my understanding, this UUID should be different from client to client. I don't know whether this is a bug in the snom firmware always sending the same GRUU UUID or whether som "intelligent" SIP aware router is putting this in the Contact header. However, since we have disabled gruu for the registrar module (see above), I think, Kamailio should ignore it.
Ideas? Thanks in advance.
Best Regards, Sebastian
SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list sr-users@lists.sip-router.org http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
Hi Daniel,
thanks for the reply. Since we didn't configure the matching mode, it is 0 I guess. I actually didn't look into the usrlc module settings. But from the registrations, the Contacts all have a different IP address in it, so they shouldn't replace each other, right?
Best Regards, Sebastian
Hello,
there is a mode when the matching is done only on call-id. Have you checked if they use different call-id?
Anyhow, knowing the matching mode helps looking into the code in the right direction.
Cheers, Daniel
On 07/10/16 12:03, Sebastian Damm wrote:
Hi Daniel,
thanks for the reply. Since we didn't configure the matching mode, it is 0 I guess. I actually didn't look into the usrlc module settings. But from the registrations, the Contacts all have a different IP address in it, so they shouldn't replace each other, right?
Best Regards, Sebastian
Hi Daniel,
sorry for the late reply. All clients used a different call-id. And after they were reconfigured to not use any GRUU stuff, everything worked as expected again. The matching mode for the usrloc module is 0.
Best Regards, Sebastian
On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 2:01 PM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla miconda@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
there is a mode when the matching is done only on call-id. Have you checked if they use different call-id?
Anyhow, knowing the matching mode helps looking into the code in the right direction.
Cheers, Daniel
On 07/10/16 12:03, Sebastian Damm wrote:
Hi Daniel,
thanks for the reply. Since we didn't configure the matching mode, it is 0 I guess. I actually didn't look into the usrlc module settings. But from the registrations, the Contacts all have a different IP address in it, so they shouldn't replace each other, right?
Best Regards, Sebastian
-- Daniel-Constantin Mierla http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda Kamailio Advanced Training, Berlin, Oct 24-26, 2016 - http://www.asipto.com
-
Daniel-Constantin Mierla -
Sebastian Damm