Hi all,
I am testing with SER 0.8.11 and I see the following problem:
I have record-route enabled. The mysterious behaviour is the following: SER adds a Record-Route header to an INVITE-Request which does not only consist of the host-portion of the proxy but also of a user-name.
As a consequence (I assume) loose_route does not work on such a Route-header.
Below I have documented the received and forwarded Request of SER.
Does anybody have an idea what might be wrong? Help very much appreciated.
Franz
The INVITE received by SER:
INVITE sip:snom@sip.fehome SIP/2.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.0.1:5060;rport;branch=z9hG4bK97357ABBD8044AC5A3F32B0D76D4DCF6 From: wpc sip:wpc@sip.fehome;tag=2950742891 To: sip:snom@sip.fehome Contact: sip:wpc@192.168.0.1:5060 Call-ID: 4A927B68-574F-423F-9BDB-ECEAC88CD4BC@192.168.0.1 CSeq: 56548 INVITE Max-Forwards: 70 Content-Type: application/sdp User-Agent: X-Lite build 1088 Content-Length: 288 ...(SDP-part not shown)
The INVITE forwarded by SER after lookup (with record-route enabled):
INVITE sip:snom@192.168.0.60:5060;transport=udp;line=1 SIP/2.0 Record-Route: sip:snom@192.168.0.78;ftag=2950742891;lr=on Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.0.78;branch=z9hG4bKe8f2.44610675.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.0.1:5060;rport=5060;branch=z9hG4bK97357ABBD8044AC5A3F32B0D76D4DCF6 From: wpc sip:wpc@sip.fehome;tag=2950742891 To: sip:snom@sip.fehome Contact: sip:wpc@192.168.0.1:5060 Call-ID: 4A927B68-574F-423F-9BDB-ECEAC88CD4BC@192.168.0.1 CSeq: 56548 INVITE Max-Forwards: 69 Content-Type: application/sdp User-Agent: X-Lite build 1088 Content-Length: 288 ...(SDP-part not shown)
Hi Franz,
On Friday 02 January 2004 11:25, Franz Edler wrote:
I am testing with SER 0.8.11 and I see the following problem:
I have record-route enabled. The mysterious behaviour is the following: SER adds a Record-Route header to an INVITE-Request which does not only consist of the host-portion of the proxy but also of a user-name.
Yes. Why is it a problem? This a completle legal according to RFC3261.
As a consequence (I assume) loose_route does not work on such a Route-header.
Naturally our own loose_route function works perfectly with our own Record-Route entries.
Below I have documented the received and forwarded Request of SER.
Completly normal.
Does anybody have an idea what might be wrong? Help very much appreciated.
If Record-Routing does not work, then i guess your UA (Snom?) is broken. If i remeber correct Snom is know to fail with usernames in Record-Route headers (dont know if they fixed it allready). More interesting would be to see the reply from the UA.
Greets Nils
Franz
The INVITE received by SER:
INVITE sip:snom@sip.fehome SIP/2.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.0.1:5060;rport;branch=z9hG4bK97357ABBD8044AC5A3F32B0D76D4DCF6 From: wpc sip:wpc@sip.fehome;tag=2950742891 To: sip:snom@sip.fehome Contact: sip:wpc@192.168.0.1:5060 Call-ID: 4A927B68-574F-423F-9BDB-ECEAC88CD4BC@192.168.0.1 CSeq: 56548 INVITE Max-Forwards: 70 Content-Type: application/sdp User-Agent: X-Lite build 1088 Content-Length: 288 ...(SDP-part not shown)
The INVITE forwarded by SER after lookup (with record-route enabled):
INVITE sip:snom@192.168.0.60:5060;transport=udp;line=1 SIP/2.0 Record-Route: sip:snom@192.168.0.78;ftag=2950742891;lr=on Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.0.78;branch=z9hG4bKe8f2.44610675.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.0.1:5060;rport=5060;branch=z9hG4bK97357ABBD8044AC5A3F32B0D76D4DCF6 From: wpc sip:wpc@sip.fehome;tag=2950742891 To: sip:snom@sip.fehome Contact: sip:wpc@192.168.0.1:5060 Call-ID: 4A927B68-574F-423F-9BDB-ECEAC88CD4BC@192.168.0.1 CSeq: 56548 INVITE Max-Forwards: 69 Content-Type: application/sdp User-Agent: X-Lite build 1088 Content-Length: 288 ...(SDP-part not shown)
Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
At 11:25 AM 1/2/2004, Franz Edler wrote:
Hi all,
I am testing with SER 0.8.11 and I see the following problem:
I have record-route enabled. The mysterious behaviour is the following: SER adds a Record-Route header to an INVITE-Request which does not only consist of the host-portion of the proxy but also of a user-name.
Which is correct.
As a consequence (I assume) loose_route does not work on such a Route-header.
That's not a reason why it should not work.
Below I have documented the received and forwarded Request of SER.
Both messages look ok.
-jiri
Does anybody have an idea what might be wrong? Help very much appreciated.
Franz
The INVITE received by SER:
INVITE sip:snom@sip.fehome SIP/2.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.0.1:5060;rport;branch=z9hG4bK97357ABBD8044AC5A3F32B0D76D4DCF6 From: wpc sip:wpc@sip.fehome;tag=2950742891 To: sip:snom@sip.fehome Contact: sip:wpc@192.168.0.1:5060 Call-ID: 4A927B68-574F-423F-9BDB-ECEAC88CD4BC@192.168.0.1 CSeq: 56548 INVITE Max-Forwards: 70 Content-Type: application/sdp User-Agent: X-Lite build 1088 Content-Length: 288 ...(SDP-part not shown)
The INVITE forwarded by SER after lookup (with record-route enabled):
INVITE sip:snom@192.168.0.60:5060;transport=udp;line=1 SIP/2.0 Record-Route: sip:snom@192.168.0.78;ftag=2950742891;lr=on Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.0.78;branch=z9hG4bKe8f2.44610675.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.0.1:5060;rport=5060;branch=z9hG4bK97357ABBD8044AC5A3F32B0D76D4DCF6 From: wpc sip:wpc@sip.fehome;tag=2950742891 To: sip:snom@sip.fehome Contact: sip:wpc@192.168.0.1:5060 Call-ID: 4A927B68-574F-423F-9BDB-ECEAC88CD4BC@192.168.0.1 CSeq: 56548 INVITE Max-Forwards: 69 Content-Type: application/sdp User-Agent: X-Lite build 1088 Content-Length: 288 ...(SDP-part not shown)
Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
-- Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/
-
Franz Edler -
Jiri Kuthan -
Nils Ohlmeier