24 Aug
2006
24 Aug
'06
5:20 p.m.
Hi list,
my proxy (yy.yy.yy.yy) receives a message like this:
BYE sip:12345678@xx.xx.xx.xx SIP/2.0
Record-Route: <sip:xx.xx.xx.xx;ftag=875188d2;lr=on>
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP xx.xx.xx.xx;branch=z9hG4bK07cb.466d8587.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP ww.ww.ww.ww:5060;branch=z9hG4bK875196bf
Route: <sip:xx.xx.xx.xx;ftag=1056999653;lr=on>
My ruleset is something like this (with the REGISTER logic pulled out) :
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
route {
if (!mf_process_maxfwd_header("10")) {
sl_send_reply("483","Too Many Hops");
exit;
};
if (msg:len >= 2048 ) {
sl_send_reply("513", "Message too big");
exit;
};
force_rport();
if (!method == "REGISTER") {
record_route();
};
if (loose_route()) {
route(1);
};
loopkup("location");
route(1);
}
route[1] {
if (!t_relay()) {
sl_reply_error();
};
exit;
}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
I would expect the packet to leave my router, back to xx.xx.xx.xx :
BYE sip:12345678@xx.xx.xx.xx SIP/2.0
Record-Route: <sip:yy.yy.yy.yy;lr;ftag=2873864>
Record-Route: <sip:xx.xx.xx.xx;ftag=875188d2;lr=on>
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP yy.yy.yy.yy;branch=zu83fdhDB8d.67235676.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP xx.xx.xx.xx;branch=z9hG4bK07cb.466d8587.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP ww.ww.ww.ww:5060;branch=z9hG4bK875196bf
Route: <sip:xx.xx.xx.xx;ftag=1056999653;lr=on>
But the outgoing packet is :
BYE sip:xx.xx.xx.xx;ftag=1056999653;lr=on SIP/2.0
Record-Route: <sip:xx.xx.xx.xx;ftag=875188d2;lr=on>
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP yy.yy.yy.yy;branch=z9hG4bK07cb.02005244.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP xx.xx.xx.xx;rport=5060;branch=z9hG4bK07cb.466d8587.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP ww.ww.ww.ww:5060;branch=z9hG4bK875196bf
Do you have any idea about what is going on ?
Thank you.
Best regards,
--
Jeremie Le Hen
< jeremie at le-hen dot org >< ttz at chchile dot org >
24 Aug
24 Aug
5:27 p.m.
Hello,
is the IP/domain from R-URI (BYE sip:12345678@xx.xx.xx.xx SIP/2.0) a
local one for OpenSER? If so, then the rr module interprets that is a
strict routing and routes accordingly.
Cheers,
Daniel
On 08/24/06 17:20, Jeremie Le Hen wrote:
Hi list,
my proxy (yy.yy.yy.yy) receives a message like this:
BYE sip:12345678@xx.xx.xx.xx SIP/2.0
Record-Route: <sip:xx.xx.xx.xx;ftag=875188d2;lr=on>
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP xx.xx.xx.xx;branch=z9hG4bK07cb.466d8587.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP ww.ww.ww.ww:5060;branch=z9hG4bK875196bf
Route: <sip:xx.xx.xx.xx;ftag=1056999653;lr=on>
My ruleset is something like this (with the REGISTER logic pulled out) :
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
route {
if (!mf_process_maxfwd_header("10")) {
sl_send_reply("483","Too Many Hops");
exit;
};
if (msg:len >= 2048 ) {
sl_send_reply("513", "Message too big");
exit;
};
force_rport();
if (!method == "REGISTER") {
record_route();
};
if (loose_route()) {
route(1);
};
loopkup("location");
route(1);
}
route[1] {
if (!t_relay()) {
sl_reply_error();
};
exit;
}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
I would expect the packet to leave my router, back to xx.xx.xx.xx :
BYE sip:12345678@xx.xx.xx.xx SIP/2.0
Record-Route: <sip:yy.yy.yy.yy;lr;ftag=2873864>
Record-Route: <sip:xx.xx.xx.xx;ftag=875188d2;lr=on>
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP yy.yy.yy.yy;branch=zu83fdhDB8d.67235676.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP xx.xx.xx.xx;branch=z9hG4bK07cb.466d8587.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP ww.ww.ww.ww:5060;branch=z9hG4bK875196bf
Route: <sip:xx.xx.xx.xx;ftag=1056999653;lr=on>
But the outgoing packet is :
BYE sip:xx.xx.xx.xx;ftag=1056999653;lr=on SIP/2.0
Record-Route: <sip:xx.xx.xx.xx;ftag=875188d2;lr=on>
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP yy.yy.yy.yy;branch=z9hG4bK07cb.02005244.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP xx.xx.xx.xx;rport=5060;branch=z9hG4bK07cb.466d8587.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP ww.ww.ww.ww:5060;branch=z9hG4bK875196bf
Do you have any idea about what is going on ?
Thank you.
Best regards,
5:57 p.m.
New subject: [openser] Re: [Users] Weird forwarding with Route header
Hi Daniel-Constantin,
thank you for your quick reply.
On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 05:27:49PM +0300, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
is the IP/domain from R-URI (BYE
sip:12345678@xx.xx.xx.xx SIP/2.0) a
local one for OpenSER? If so, then the rr module interprets that is a
strict routing and routes accordingly.
Indeed the incoming BYE request URI is a local one for my proxy. I made a
mistake while dumping the lines manually in my previous mail. Good catch.
Actually, I had thought about this and I checked the RFC3261:
% 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 modify the copy as
% follows:
%
% - The proxy MUST place the Request-URI into the Route header
% field as the last value.
%
% - The proxy MUST then place the first Route header field value
% into the Request-URI and remove that value from the Route
% header field.
But the original request is (yy.yy.yy.yy being my proxy):
BYE sip:12345678@yy.yy.yy.yy:SIP/2.0
Record-Route: <sip:xx.xx.xx.xx;ftag=875188d2;lr=on>
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP xx.xx.xx.xx;branch=z9hG4bK07cb.466d8587.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP ww.ww.ww.ww:5060;branch=z9hG4bK875196bf
Route: <sip:xx.xx.xx.xx;ftag=1056999653;lr=on>
As you can see, the Route header contains a "lr=on" parameter.
And the outgoing request is nevertheless:
BYE sip:xx.xx.xx.xx;ftag=1056999653;lr=on SIP/2.0
Record-Route: <sip:xx.xx.xx.xx;ftag=875188d2;lr=on>
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP yy.yy.yy.yy;branch=z9hG4bK07cb.02005244.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP xx.xx.xx.xx;rport=5060;branch=z9hG4bK07cb.466d8587.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP ww.ww.ww.ww:5060;branch=z9hG4bK875196bf
This is why I don't understand what's happening.
Regards,
--
Jeremie Le Hen
< jeremie at le-hen dot org >< ttz at chchile dot org >
6671
days inactive
6671
days old
2 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Daniel-Constantin Mierla -
Jeremie Le Hen