Our company has a call center implementation on a client with up to 100 support personnel using X-Lite version 1050 softphones running under Windows 98. Until a few days ago, the softphones were logged in directly on our PBXs. Now, they log onto a separate SER 0.8.14 box and the PBXs forward calls to SER. That was needed to unify queue management.
It works. But some softphones are being randomly kicked out of SER, it seems SER isn't receiving the refresh REGISTER messages from the softphones. The re-register timeout is set to 500 seconds on the softphones. There's a lot of "removing spare zombie" and "Binding '<user>','<url>' has expired" messages in /var/log/messages.
For now, we're instructing the client to increase the timeout to 10 hours on the softphones in which the problem happens most often. I don't know if that's really the right thing to do, I think we should somehow make sure the re-registers are done in a timely fashion and retried, but I could not find ant SER configuration option related to that. What should I do?
Another thing: the softphones take a horribly high amount of time to log in, but that may be because X-Lite sucks.
Regards, Juan
On 22-06-2005 17:57, Juan Carlos Castro y Castro wrote:
Our company has a call center implementation on a client with up to 100 support personnel using X-Lite version 1050 softphones running under Windows 98. Until a few days ago, the softphones were logged in directly on our PBXs. Now, they log onto a separate SER 0.8.14 box and the PBXs forward calls to SER. That was needed to unify queue management.
It works. But some softphones are being randomly kicked out of SER, it seems SER isn't receiving the refresh REGISTER messages from the softphones. The re-register timeout is set to 500 seconds on the softphones. There's a lot of "removing spare zombie" and "Binding '<user>','<url>' has expired" messages in /var/log/messages.
The message means that SER did not receive REGISTER re-fresh and is thus removing the contact from the user location database.
Pick one user agent that has this problem and install ngrep monitor on the server to monitor all REGISTER messages from that user agent. This way you could find out if the problem is in the user agent or network (in this case you will not see REGISTER refresh messages on the server) or in SER (in that case you will see them but SER probably fails to process them).
Also make sure that SER is not configured to shorten the registration period. When registrar receives a REGISTER message, it is free to use shorter expires value for the Contac than what was suggested by the user agent in the request. In this case the real expires value of the contact will be in 200 OK and user agents are suppose to pick it up from there and update the refresh interval accordingly. This may not work in the case when Contact IP address is rewritten by the server for the purpose of NAT traversal. In this case the user agent will be unable to find its contact (because it has been rewritten) and will not update the refresh interval (resulting in expired registrations).
For now, we're instructing the client to increase the timeout to 10 hours on the softphones in which the problem happens most often. I don't know if that's really the right thing to do, I think we should somehow make sure the re-registers are done in a timely fashion and retried, but I could not find ant SER configuration option related to that. What should I do?
You can configure the maximum allowed expires value in SER, if a user agent tries to REGISTER a contact with longer expires value than it will be automatically updated by registrar to the value of max_expires parameter.
There is also min_expires parameter in registrar module but that one should not be used because the current implementation violates RFC3261.
If you are using any of the two parameter than it might be a good idea to retry without them (to see if the problem persists).
Jan.
I am facing the same problem too, one of the UA that I am testing on does not re-register itself. It has no problem re-registering itself to asterisk.
I compared the ethereal trace for the registration on SER and Asterisk. And I found that Asterisk append "Expires: xxx" above the "Contact: " while SER does not. Anything that I can do to append "Expires: xxx" in the 200 ok packet that SER is sending out?
Below is the comparison:
SER: ĸe`SIP/2.0 200 OK Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.0.4:5060;branch=z9hG4bKef17e9623;rport=32914;received=xxx.xxx.xxx.xx x To: 5008 sip:18182002@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx;tag=856642a4d7f9f16db9502202a011388b.db9a From: 5008 sip:18182002@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx;tag=1f55b6cd5586c2d Call-ID: 928d75b5b6c7d128a0ccaf24e5b52c74@192.168.0.4 CSeq: 1028949336 REGISTER Contact:sip:18182002@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:32914;user=phone;expires=60;received= "sip:xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:32914" Server: Sip EXpress router (0.9.0 (i386/linux)) Content-Length: 0
ASTERISK: ÄÄ x9SIP/2.0 200 OK Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.0.4;branch=z9hG4bKf91124aeb;received=xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx;rport=32914 From: 603200661 sip:603200661@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx;tag=7f4a78971dd573b To: 603200661 sip:603200661@xxx.xxx.xxxx.xxx;tag=as4f0c60fe Call-ID: 59a4ee90d5fbe74f8de459fb2506acf0@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx CSeq: 937060361 REGISTER User-Agent: xxx Allow: INVITE, ACK, CANCEL, OPTIONS, BYE, REFER Expires: 1200 Contact: sip:603200661@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx;user=phone;expires=1200 Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 04:36:20 GMT Content-Length: 0
Thanks.
Regards, Chia
-----Original Message----- From: serusers-bounces@iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org] On Behalf Of Jan Janak Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 4:39 PM To: Juan Carlos Castro y Castro Cc: serusers@lists.iptel.org Subject: Re: [Serusers] SER losing SIP registrations
On 22-06-2005 17:57, Juan Carlos Castro y Castro wrote:
Our company has a call center implementation on a client with up to 100 support personnel using X-Lite version 1050 softphones running under Windows 98. Until a few days ago, the softphones were logged in directly on our PBXs. Now, they log onto a separate SER 0.8.14 box and the PBXs forward calls to SER. That was needed to unify queue management.
It works. But some softphones are being randomly kicked out of SER, it seems SER isn't receiving the refresh REGISTER messages from the softphones. The re-register timeout is set to 500 seconds on the softphones. There's a lot of "removing spare zombie" and "Binding '<user>','<url>' has expired" messages in /var/log/messages.
The message means that SER did not receive REGISTER re-fresh and is thus removing the contact from the user location database.
Pick one user agent that has this problem and install ngrep monitor on the server to monitor all REGISTER messages from that user agent. This way you could find out if the problem is in the user agent or network (in this case you will not see REGISTER refresh messages on the server) or in SER (in that case you will see them but SER probably fails to process them).
Also make sure that SER is not configured to shorten the registration period. When registrar receives a REGISTER message, it is free to use shorter expires value for the Contac than what was suggested by the user agent in the request. In this case the real expires value of the contact will be in 200 OK and user agents are suppose to pick it up from there and update the refresh interval accordingly. This may not work in the case when Contact IP address is rewritten by the server for the purpose of NAT traversal. In this case the user agent will be unable to find its contact (because it has been rewritten) and will not update the refresh interval (resulting in expired registrations).
For now, we're instructing the client to increase the timeout to 10 hours on the softphones in which the problem happens most often. I don't know if that's really the right thing to do, I think we should somehow make sure the re-registers are done in a timely fashion and retried, but I could not find ant SER configuration option related to that. What should I do?
You can configure the maximum allowed expires value in SER, if a user agent tries to REGISTER a contact with longer expires value than it will be automatically updated by registrar to the value of max_expires parameter.
There is also min_expires parameter in registrar module but that one should not be used because the current implementation violates RFC3261.
If you are using any of the two parameter than it might be a good idea to retry without them (to see if the problem persists).
Jan.
Could send me also the REGISTER messages ?
Jan.
On 23-06-2005 17:36, Chia Huey Lim wrote:
I am facing the same problem too, one of the UA that I am testing on does not re-register itself. It has no problem re-registering itself to asterisk.
I compared the ethereal trace for the registration on SER and Asterisk. And I found that Asterisk append "Expires: xxx" above the "Contact: " while SER does not. Anything that I can do to append "Expires: xxx" in the 200 ok packet that SER is sending out?
Below is the comparison:
SER: ĸe`SIP/2.0 200 OK Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.0.4:5060;branch=z9hG4bKef17e9623;rport=32914;received=xxx.xxx.xxx.xx x To: 5008 sip:18182002@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx;tag=856642a4d7f9f16db9502202a011388b.db9a From: 5008 sip:18182002@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx;tag=1f55b6cd5586c2d Call-ID: 928d75b5b6c7d128a0ccaf24e5b52c74@192.168.0.4 CSeq: 1028949336 REGISTER Contact:sip:18182002@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:32914;user=phone;expires=60;received= "sip:xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:32914" Server: Sip EXpress router (0.9.0 (i386/linux)) Content-Length: 0
ASTERISK: ÄÄ x9SIP/2.0 200 OK Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.0.4;branch=z9hG4bKf91124aeb;received=xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx;rport=32914 From: 603200661 sip:603200661@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx;tag=7f4a78971dd573b To: 603200661 sip:603200661@xxx.xxx.xxxx.xxx;tag=as4f0c60fe Call-ID: 59a4ee90d5fbe74f8de459fb2506acf0@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx CSeq: 937060361 REGISTER User-Agent: xxx Allow: INVITE, ACK, CANCEL, OPTIONS, BYE, REFER Expires: 1200 Contact: sip:603200661@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx;user=phone;expires=1200 Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 04:36:20 GMT Content-Length: 0
Thanks.
Regards, Chia
-----Original Message----- From: serusers-bounces@iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org] On Behalf Of Jan Janak Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 4:39 PM To: Juan Carlos Castro y Castro Cc: serusers@lists.iptel.org Subject: Re: [Serusers] SER losing SIP registrations
On 22-06-2005 17:57, Juan Carlos Castro y Castro wrote:
Our company has a call center implementation on a client with up to 100 support personnel using X-Lite version 1050 softphones running under Windows 98. Until a few days ago, the softphones were logged in directly on our PBXs. Now, they log onto a separate SER 0.8.14 box and the PBXs forward calls to SER. That was needed to unify queue management.
It works. But some softphones are being randomly kicked out of SER, it seems SER isn't receiving the refresh REGISTER messages from the softphones. The re-register timeout is set to 500 seconds on the softphones. There's a lot of "removing spare zombie" and "Binding '<user>','<url>' has expired" messages in /var/log/messages.
The message means that SER did not receive REGISTER re-fresh and is thus removing the contact from the user location database.
Pick one user agent that has this problem and install ngrep monitor on the server to monitor all REGISTER messages from that user agent. This way you could find out if the problem is in the user agent or network (in this case you will not see REGISTER refresh messages on the server) or in SER (in that case you will see them but SER probably fails to process them).
Also make sure that SER is not configured to shorten the registration period. When registrar receives a REGISTER message, it is free to use shorter expires value for the Contac than what was suggested by the user agent in the request. In this case the real expires value of the contact will be in 200 OK and user agents are suppose to pick it up from there and update the refresh interval accordingly. This may not work in the case when Contact IP address is rewritten by the server for the purpose of NAT traversal. In this case the user agent will be unable to find its contact (because it has been rewritten) and will not update the refresh interval (resulting in expired registrations).
For now, we're instructing the client to increase the timeout to 10 hours on the softphones in which the problem happens most often. I don't know if that's really the right thing to do, I think we should somehow make sure the re-registers are done in a timely fashion and retried, but I could not find ant SER configuration option related to that. What should I do?
You can configure the maximum allowed expires value in SER, if a user agent tries to REGISTER a contact with longer expires value than it will be automatically updated by registrar to the value of max_expires parameter.
There is also min_expires parameter in registrar module but that one should not be used because the current implementation violates RFC3261.
If you are using any of the two parameter than it might be a good idea to retry without them (to see if the problem persists).
Jan.
Sure...
SER: REGISTER sip:xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx SIP/2.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.0.4:5060;branch=z9hG4bKd9e688a70 Max-Forwards: 70 Content-Length: 0 To: 5008 sip:18182002@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx From: 5008 sip:18182002@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx;tag=1f55b6cd5586c2d Call-ID: 928d75b5b6c7d128a0ccaf24e5b52c74@192.168.0.4 CSeq: 1028949335 REGISTER Contact: 5008 sip:18182002@192.168.0.4:5060;user=phone;expires=60 Allow: NOTIFY Allow: REFER Allow: OPTIONS Allow: INVITE Allow: ACK Allow: CANCEL Allow: BYE User-Agent: InterEdge-ieta200
ASTERISK: REGISTER sip:xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx SIP/2.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.0.4;branch=z9hG4bKf91124aeb Max-Forwards: 70 Content-Length: 0 To: 603200661 sip:603200661@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx From: 603200661 sip:603200661@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx;tag=7f4a78971dd573b Call-ID: 59a4ee90d5fbe74f8de459fb2506acf0@192.168.0.4 CSeq: 937060361 REGISTER Contact: 603200661 sip:603200661@192.168.0.4;user=phone;expires=1200 Allow: NOTIFY Allow: REFER Allow: OPTIONS Allow: INVITE Allow: ACK Allow: CANCEL Allow: BYE Authorization:Digest response="869ebcdfd4f83cfd805c0b03e768b9a5",username="603200661",realm="xxx" ,nonce="297966ac",uri="sip:xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx" User-Agent: InterEdge-ieta200
Regards, Chia
-----Original Message----- From: 'Jan Janak' [mailto:jan@iptel.org] Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 5:44 PM To: Chia Huey Lim Cc: 'Juan Carlos Castro y Castro'; serusers@lists.iptel.org Subject: Re: [Serusers] SER losing SIP registrations
Could send me also the REGISTER messages ?
Jan.
On 23-06-2005 17:36, Chia Huey Lim wrote:
I am facing the same problem too, one of the UA that I am testing on does not re-register itself. It has no problem re-registering itself to
asterisk.
I compared the ethereal trace for the registration on SER and Asterisk.
And
I found that Asterisk append "Expires: xxx" above the "Contact: " while
SER
does not. Anything that I can do to append "Expires: xxx" in the 200 ok packet that SER is sending out?
Below is the comparison:
SER: ĸe`SIP/2.0 200 OK Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
192.168.0.4:5060;branch=z9hG4bKef17e9623;rport=32914;received=xxx.xxx.xxx.xx
x To: 5008 sip:18182002@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx;tag=856642a4d7f9f16db9502202a011388b.db9a From: 5008 sip:18182002@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx;tag=1f55b6cd5586c2d Call-ID: 928d75b5b6c7d128a0ccaf24e5b52c74@192.168.0.4 CSeq: 1028949336 REGISTER
Contact:sip:18182002@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:32914;user=phone;expires=60;received=
"sip:xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:32914" Server: Sip EXpress router (0.9.0 (i386/linux)) Content-Length: 0
ASTERISK: ÄÄ x9SIP/2.0 200 OK Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.0.4;branch=z9hG4bKf91124aeb;received=xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx;rport=32914 From: 603200661 sip:603200661@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx;tag=7f4a78971dd573b To: 603200661 sip:603200661@xxx.xxx.xxxx.xxx;tag=as4f0c60fe Call-ID: 59a4ee90d5fbe74f8de459fb2506acf0@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx CSeq: 937060361 REGISTER User-Agent: xxx Allow: INVITE, ACK, CANCEL, OPTIONS, BYE, REFER Expires: 1200 Contact: sip:603200661@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx;user=phone;expires=1200 Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 04:36:20 GMT Content-Length: 0
Thanks.
Regards, Chia
-----Original Message----- From: serusers-bounces@iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org] On Behalf Of Jan Janak Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 4:39 PM To: Juan Carlos Castro y Castro Cc: serusers@lists.iptel.org Subject: Re: [Serusers] SER losing SIP registrations
On 22-06-2005 17:57, Juan Carlos Castro y Castro wrote:
Our company has a call center implementation on a client with up to 100 support personnel using X-Lite version 1050 softphones running under Windows 98. Until a few days ago, the softphones were logged in directly on our PBXs. Now, they log onto a separate SER 0.8.14 box and the PBXs forward calls to SER. That was needed to unify queue management.
It works. But some softphones are being randomly kicked out of SER, it seems SER isn't receiving the refresh REGISTER messages from the softphones. The re-register timeout is set to 500 seconds on the softphones. There's a lot of "removing spare zombie" and "Binding '<user>','<url>' has expired" messages in /var/log/messages.
The message means that SER did not receive REGISTER re-fresh and is thus removing the contact from the user location database.
Pick one user agent that has this problem and install ngrep monitor on the server to monitor all REGISTER messages from that user agent. This way you could find out if the problem is in the user agent or network (in this case you will not see REGISTER refresh messages on the server) or in SER (in that case you will see them but SER probably fails to process them).
Also make sure that SER is not configured to shorten the registration period. When registrar receives a REGISTER message, it is free to use shorter expires value for the Contac than what was suggested by the user agent in the request. In this case the real expires value of the contact will be in 200 OK and user agents are suppose to pick it up from there and update the refresh interval accordingly. This may not work in the case when Contact IP address is rewritten by the server for the purpose of NAT traversal. In this case the user agent will be unable to find its contact (because it has been rewritten) and will not update the refresh interval (resulting in expired registrations).
For now, we're instructing the client to increase the timeout to 10 hours on the softphones in which the problem happens most often. I don't know if that's really the right thing to do, I think we should somehow make sure the re-registers are done in a timely fashion and retried, but I could not find ant SER configuration option related to that. What should I do?
You can configure the maximum allowed expires value in SER, if a user agent tries to REGISTER a contact with longer expires value than it will be automatically updated by registrar to the value of max_expires parameter.
There is also min_expires parameter in registrar module but that one should not be used because the current implementation violates RFC3261.
If you are using any of the two parameter than it might be a good idea to retry without them (to see if the problem persists).
Jan.
OK, the REGISTER message contains a private IP in the contact. That would force SER to rewrite the IP address with the public IP of the NAT and the user agent is probably unable to match the contact and find out what the expires value set by the server is. That explains why it works with Expires: 60 header field parameter but does not work with ;expires=60 contact parameter.
There are two options:
1) Hack -- insert Expires: 50 header field into the reply using append_to_reply function from textopts module. Note that the value you insert this way must be lower than the value of expires parameter in the contact.
2) Use fix_nated_register instead of fix_nated_contact for REGISTER messages. This function does not rewrite the IP in contact, instead it would append the public IP and port used by the NAT as a parameter of Contact header field. The two values will be stored separately in the user location database. When forwarding a message to the contact, the Request-URI will contain the private IP of the user agent, but the message will be sent to the public IP of the NAT (destination set will be used). This way the Contact in 200 OK reply will be not modified and the user agent should be able to set the expires value properly.
Jan.
On 23-06-2005 17:59, Chia Huey Lim wrote:
Sure...
SER: REGISTER sip:xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx SIP/2.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.0.4:5060;branch=z9hG4bKd9e688a70 Max-Forwards: 70 Content-Length: 0 To: 5008 sip:18182002@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx From: 5008 sip:18182002@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx;tag=1f55b6cd5586c2d Call-ID: 928d75b5b6c7d128a0ccaf24e5b52c74@192.168.0.4 CSeq: 1028949335 REGISTER Contact: 5008 sip:18182002@192.168.0.4:5060;user=phone;expires=60 Allow: NOTIFY Allow: REFER Allow: OPTIONS Allow: INVITE Allow: ACK Allow: CANCEL Allow: BYE User-Agent: InterEdge-ieta200
ASTERISK: REGISTER sip:xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx SIP/2.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.0.4;branch=z9hG4bKf91124aeb Max-Forwards: 70 Content-Length: 0 To: 603200661 sip:603200661@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx From: 603200661 sip:603200661@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx;tag=7f4a78971dd573b Call-ID: 59a4ee90d5fbe74f8de459fb2506acf0@192.168.0.4 CSeq: 937060361 REGISTER Contact: 603200661 sip:603200661@192.168.0.4;user=phone;expires=1200 Allow: NOTIFY Allow: REFER Allow: OPTIONS Allow: INVITE Allow: ACK Allow: CANCEL Allow: BYE Authorization:Digest response="869ebcdfd4f83cfd805c0b03e768b9a5",username="603200661",realm="xxx" ,nonce="297966ac",uri="sip:xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx" User-Agent: InterEdge-ieta200
Regards, Chia
-----Original Message----- From: 'Jan Janak' [mailto:jan@iptel.org] Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 5:44 PM To: Chia Huey Lim Cc: 'Juan Carlos Castro y Castro'; serusers@lists.iptel.org Subject: Re: [Serusers] SER losing SIP registrations
Could send me also the REGISTER messages ?
Jan.
On 23-06-2005 17:36, Chia Huey Lim wrote:
I am facing the same problem too, one of the UA that I am testing on does not re-register itself. It has no problem re-registering itself to
asterisk.
I compared the ethereal trace for the registration on SER and Asterisk.
And
I found that Asterisk append "Expires: xxx" above the "Contact: " while
SER
does not. Anything that I can do to append "Expires: xxx" in the 200 ok packet that SER is sending out?
Below is the comparison:
SER: ĸe`SIP/2.0 200 OK Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
192.168.0.4:5060;branch=z9hG4bKef17e9623;rport=32914;received=xxx.xxx.xxx.xx
x To: 5008 sip:18182002@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx;tag=856642a4d7f9f16db9502202a011388b.db9a From: 5008 sip:18182002@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx;tag=1f55b6cd5586c2d Call-ID: 928d75b5b6c7d128a0ccaf24e5b52c74@192.168.0.4 CSeq: 1028949336 REGISTER
Contact:sip:18182002@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:32914;user=phone;expires=60;received=
"sip:xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:32914" Server: Sip EXpress router (0.9.0 (i386/linux)) Content-Length: 0
ASTERISK: ÄÄ x9SIP/2.0 200 OK Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.0.4;branch=z9hG4bKf91124aeb;received=xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx;rport=32914 From: 603200661 sip:603200661@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx;tag=7f4a78971dd573b To: 603200661 sip:603200661@xxx.xxx.xxxx.xxx;tag=as4f0c60fe Call-ID: 59a4ee90d5fbe74f8de459fb2506acf0@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx CSeq: 937060361 REGISTER User-Agent: xxx Allow: INVITE, ACK, CANCEL, OPTIONS, BYE, REFER Expires: 1200 Contact: sip:603200661@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx;user=phone;expires=1200 Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 04:36:20 GMT Content-Length: 0
Thanks.
Regards, Chia
-----Original Message----- From: serusers-bounces@iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org] On Behalf Of Jan Janak Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 4:39 PM To: Juan Carlos Castro y Castro Cc: serusers@lists.iptel.org Subject: Re: [Serusers] SER losing SIP registrations
On 22-06-2005 17:57, Juan Carlos Castro y Castro wrote:
Our company has a call center implementation on a client with up to 100 support personnel using X-Lite version 1050 softphones running under Windows 98. Until a few days ago, the softphones were logged in directly on our PBXs. Now, they log onto a separate SER 0.8.14 box and the PBXs forward calls to SER. That was needed to unify queue management.
It works. But some softphones are being randomly kicked out of SER, it seems SER isn't receiving the refresh REGISTER messages from the softphones. The re-register timeout is set to 500 seconds on the softphones. There's a lot of "removing spare zombie" and "Binding '<user>','<url>' has expired" messages in /var/log/messages.
The message means that SER did not receive REGISTER re-fresh and is thus removing the contact from the user location database.
Pick one user agent that has this problem and install ngrep monitor on the server to monitor all REGISTER messages from that user agent. This way you could find out if the problem is in the user agent or network (in this case you will not see REGISTER refresh messages on the server) or in SER (in that case you will see them but SER probably fails to process them).
Also make sure that SER is not configured to shorten the registration period. When registrar receives a REGISTER message, it is free to use shorter expires value for the Contac than what was suggested by the user agent in the request. In this case the real expires value of the contact will be in 200 OK and user agents are suppose to pick it up from there and update the refresh interval accordingly. This may not work in the case when Contact IP address is rewritten by the server for the purpose of NAT traversal. In this case the user agent will be unable to find its contact (because it has been rewritten) and will not update the refresh interval (resulting in expired registrations).
For now, we're instructing the client to increase the timeout to 10 hours on the softphones in which the problem happens most often. I don't know if that's really the right thing to do, I think we should somehow make sure the re-registers are done in a timely fashion and retried, but I could not find ant SER configuration option related to that. What should I do?
You can configure the maximum allowed expires value in SER, if a user agent tries to REGISTER a contact with longer expires value than it will be automatically updated by registrar to the value of max_expires parameter.
There is also min_expires parameter in registrar module but that one should not be used because the current implementation violates RFC3261.
If you are using any of the two parameter than it might be a good idea to retry without them (to see if the problem persists).
Jan.
Jan,
We experience the same problems over here with some of our clients, only here some of them are actually on valid IPs (no NAT). Any ideas?
Thnx, Fernando
On Thursday 23 June 2005 08:44, 'Jan Janak' wrote:
OK, the REGISTER message contains a private IP in the contact. That would force SER to rewrite the IP address with the public IP of the NAT and the user agent is probably unable to match the contact and find out what the expires value set by the server is. That explains why it works with Expires: 60 header field parameter but does not work with ;expires=60 contact parameter.
There are two options:
Hack -- insert Expires: 50 header field into the reply using append_to_reply function from textopts module. Note that the value you insert this way must be lower than the value of expires parameter in the contact.
Use fix_nated_register instead of fix_nated_contact for REGISTER messages. This function does not rewrite the IP in contact, instead it would append the public IP and port used by the NAT as a parameter of Contact header field. The two values will be stored separately in the user location database. When forwarding a message to the contact, the Request-URI will contain the private IP of the user agent, but the message will be sent to the public IP of the NAT (destination set will be used). This way the Contact in 200 OK reply will be not modified and the user agent should be able to set the expires value properly.
Jan.
On 23-06-2005 17:59, Chia Huey Lim wrote:
Sure...
SER: REGISTER sip:xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx SIP/2.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.0.4:5060;branch=z9hG4bKd9e688a70 Max-Forwards: 70 Content-Length: 0 To: 5008 sip:18182002@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx From: 5008 sip:18182002@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx;tag=1f55b6cd5586c2d Call-ID: 928d75b5b6c7d128a0ccaf24e5b52c74@192.168.0.4 CSeq: 1028949335 REGISTER Contact: 5008 sip:18182002@192.168.0.4:5060;user=phone;expires=60 Allow: NOTIFY Allow: REFER Allow: OPTIONS Allow: INVITE Allow: ACK Allow: CANCEL Allow: BYE User-Agent: InterEdge-ieta200
ASTERISK: REGISTER sip:xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx SIP/2.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.0.4;branch=z9hG4bKf91124aeb Max-Forwards: 70 Content-Length: 0 To: 603200661 sip:603200661@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx From: 603200661 sip:603200661@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx;tag=7f4a78971dd573b Call-ID: 59a4ee90d5fbe74f8de459fb2506acf0@192.168.0.4 CSeq: 937060361 REGISTER Contact: 603200661 sip:603200661@192.168.0.4;user=phone;expires=1200 Allow: NOTIFY Allow: REFER Allow: OPTIONS Allow: INVITE Allow: ACK Allow: CANCEL Allow: BYE Authorization:Digest response="869ebcdfd4f83cfd805c0b03e768b9a5",username="603200661",realm="x xx" ,nonce="297966ac",uri="sip:xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx" User-Agent: InterEdge-ieta200
Regards, Chia
-----Original Message----- From: 'Jan Janak' [mailto:jan@iptel.org] Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 5:44 PM To: Chia Huey Lim Cc: 'Juan Carlos Castro y Castro'; serusers@lists.iptel.org Subject: Re: [Serusers] SER losing SIP registrations
Could send me also the REGISTER messages ?
Jan.
On 23-06-2005 17:36, Chia Huey Lim wrote:
I am facing the same problem too, one of the UA that I am testing on does not re-register itself. It has no problem re-registering itself to
asterisk.
I compared the ethereal trace for the registration on SER and Asterisk.
And
I found that Asterisk append "Expires: xxx" above the "Contact: " while
SER
does not. Anything that I can do to append "Expires: xxx" in the 200 ok packet that SER is sending out?
Below is the comparison:
SER: ĸe`SIP/2.0 200 OK Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
192.168.0.4:5060;branch=z9hG4bKef17e9623;rport=32914;received=xxx.xxx.xxx .xx
x To: 5008 sip:18182002@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx;tag=856642a4d7f9f16db9502202a011388b.db9 a From: 5008 sip:18182002@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx;tag=1f55b6cd5586c2d Call-ID: 928d75b5b6c7d128a0ccaf24e5b52c74@192.168.0.4 CSeq: 1028949336 REGISTER
Contact:sip:18182002@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:32914;user=phone;expires=60;receiv ed=
"sip:xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:32914" Server: Sip EXpress router (0.9.0 (i386/linux)) Content-Length: 0
ASTERISK: ÄÄ x9SIP/2.0 200 OK Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.0.4;branch=z9hG4bKf91124aeb;received=xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx;rport=3291 4 From: 603200661 sip:603200661@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx;tag=7f4a78971dd573b To: 603200661 sip:603200661@xxx.xxx.xxxx.xxx;tag=as4f0c60fe Call-ID: 59a4ee90d5fbe74f8de459fb2506acf0@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx CSeq: 937060361 REGISTER User-Agent: xxx Allow: INVITE, ACK, CANCEL, OPTIONS, BYE, REFER Expires: 1200 Contact: sip:603200661@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx;user=phone;expires=1200 Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 04:36:20 GMT Content-Length: 0
Thanks.
Regards, Chia
-----Original Message----- From: serusers-bounces@iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org] On Behalf Of Jan Janak Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 4:39 PM To: Juan Carlos Castro y Castro Cc: serusers@lists.iptel.org Subject: Re: [Serusers] SER losing SIP registrations
On 22-06-2005 17:57, Juan Carlos Castro y Castro wrote:
Our company has a call center implementation on a client with up to 100 support personnel using X-Lite version 1050 softphones running under Windows 98. Until a few days ago, the softphones were logged in directly on our PBXs. Now, they log onto a separate SER 0.8.14 box and the PBXs forward calls to SER. That was needed to unify queue management.
It works. But some softphones are being randomly kicked out of SER, it seems SER isn't receiving the refresh REGISTER messages from the softphones. The re-register timeout is set to 500 seconds on the softphones. There's a lot of "removing spare zombie" and "Binding '<user>','<url>' has expired" messages in /var/log/messages.
The message means that SER did not receive REGISTER re-fresh and is thus removing the contact from the user location database.
Pick one user agent that has this problem and install ngrep monitor on the server to monitor all REGISTER messages from that user agent. This way you could find out if the problem is in the user agent or network (in this case you will not see REGISTER refresh messages on the server) or in SER (in that case you will see them but SER probably fails to process them).
Also make sure that SER is not configured to shorten the registration period. When registrar receives a REGISTER message, it is free to use shorter expires value for the Contac than what was suggested by the user agent in the request. In this case the real expires value of the contact will be in 200 OK and user agents are suppose to pick it up from there and update the refresh interval accordingly. This may not work in the case when Contact IP address is rewritten by the server for the purpose of NAT traversal. In this case the user agent will be unable to find its contact (because it has been rewritten) and will not update the refresh interval (resulting in expired registrations).
For now, we're instructing the client to increase the timeout to 10 hours on the softphones in which the problem happens most often. I don't know if that's really the right thing to do, I think we should somehow make sure the re-registers are done in a timely fashion and retried, but I could not find ant SER configuration option related to that. What should I do?
You can configure the maximum allowed expires value in SER, if a user agent tries to REGISTER a contact with longer expires value than it will be automatically updated by registrar to the value of max_expires parameter.
There is also min_expires parameter in registrar module but that one should not be used because the current implementation violates RFC3261.
If you are using any of the two parameter than it might be a good idea to retry without them (to see if the problem persists).
Jan.
Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
I was having the same issue last night on a valip public ip. BTW, I am using CVS HEAD version that I downloaded 1 or 2 weeks back.
Thanks
-----Original Message----- From: listbot.br@gmail.com Sent: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 15:45:45 -0300 To: chiahuey@genme.com, jcastro@instant.com.br, serusers@iptel.org Subject: Re: [Serusers] SER losing SIP registrations
Jan,
We experience the same problems over here with some of our clients, only here some of them are actually on valid IPs (no NAT). Any ideas?
Thnx, Fernando
On Thursday 23 June 2005 08:44, 'Jan Janak' wrote:
OK, the REGISTER message contains a private IP in the contact. That would force SER to rewrite the IP address with the public IP of the NAT and the user agent is probably unable to match the contact and find out what the expires value set by the server is. That explains why it works with Expires: 60 header field parameter but does not work with ;expires=60 contact parameter.
There are two options:
- Hack -- insert Expires: 50 header field into the reply using append_to_reply function from textopts module. Note that the value
you
insert this way must be lower than the value of expires parameter in
the
contact.
- Use fix_nated_register instead of fix_nated_contact for REGISTER messages. This function does not rewrite the IP in contact, instead it would append the public IP and port used by the NAT as a
parameter
of Contact header field. The two values will be stored separately in the user location database. When forwarding a message to the
contact,
the Request-URI will contain the private IP of the user agent, but the message will be sent to the public IP of the NAT (destination
set
will be used). This way the Contact in 200 OK reply will be not modified and the user agent should be able to set the expires value properly.
Jan.
On 23-06-2005 17:59, Chia Huey Lim wrote:
Sure...
SER: REGISTER sip:xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx SIP/2.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.0.4:5060;branch=z9hG4bKd9e688a70 Max-Forwards: 70 Content-Length: 0 To: 5008 sip:18182002@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx From: 5008 sip:18182002@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx;tag=1f55b6cd5586c2d Call-ID: 928d75b5b6c7d128a0ccaf24e5b52c74@192.168.0.4 CSeq: 1028949335 REGISTER Contact: 5008 sip:18182002@192.168.0.4:5060;user=phone;expires=60 Allow: NOTIFY Allow: REFER Allow: OPTIONS Allow: INVITE Allow: ACK Allow: CANCEL Allow: BYE User-Agent: InterEdge-ieta200
ASTERISK: REGISTER sip:xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx SIP/2.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.0.4;branch=z9hG4bKf91124aeb Max-Forwards: 70 Content-Length: 0 To: 603200661 sip:603200661@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx From: 603200661 sip:603200661@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx;tag=7f4a78971dd573b Call-ID: 59a4ee90d5fbe74f8de459fb2506acf0@192.168.0.4 CSeq: 937060361 REGISTER Contact: 603200661
sip:603200661@192.168.0.4;user=phone;expires=1200
Allow: NOTIFY Allow: REFER Allow: OPTIONS Allow: INVITE Allow: ACK Allow: CANCEL Allow: BYE Authorization:Digest
response="869ebcdfd4f83cfd805c0b03e768b9a5",username="603200661",realm="x
xx" ,nonce="297966ac",uri="sip:xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx" User-Agent: InterEdge-ieta200
Regards, Chia
-----Original Message----- From: 'Jan Janak' [mailto:jan@iptel.org] Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 5:44 PM To: Chia Huey Lim Cc: 'Juan Carlos Castro y Castro'; serusers@iptel.org Subject: Re: [Serusers] SER losing SIP registrations
Could send me also the REGISTER messages ?
Jan.
On 23-06-2005 17:36, Chia Huey Lim wrote:
I am facing the same problem too, one of the UA that I am testing
on
does not re-register itself. It has no problem re-registering
itself to
asterisk.
I compared the ethereal trace for the registration on SER and
Asterisk.
And
I found that Asterisk append "Expires: xxx" above the "Contact: "
while
SER
does not. Anything that I can do to append "Expires: xxx" in the
200 ok
packet that SER is sending out?
Below is the comparison:
SER: ?Ä?¸e`SIP/2.0 200 OK Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
192.168.0.4:5060;branch=z9hG4bKef17e9623;rport=32914;received=xxx.xxx.xxx
.xx
x To: 5008
sip:18182002@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx;tag=856642a4d7f9f16db9502202a011388b.db9
a From: 5008 sip:18182002@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx;tag=1f55b6cd5586c2d Call-ID: 928d75b5b6c7d128a0ccaf24e5b52c74@192.168.0.4 CSeq: 1028949336 REGISTER
Contact:sip:18182002@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:32914;user=phone;expires=60;receiv
ed=
"sip:xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:32914" Server: Sip EXpress router (0.9.0 (i386/linux)) Content-Length: 0
ASTERISK: Ä?Ä? x9SIP/2.0 200 OK Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
192.168.0.4;branch=z9hG4bKf91124aeb;received=xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx;rport=3291
4 From: 603200661
sip:603200661@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx;tag=7f4a78971dd573b
To: 603200661 sip:603200661@xxx.xxx.xxxx.xxx;tag=as4f0c60fe Call-ID: 59a4ee90d5fbe74f8de459fb2506acf0@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx CSeq: 937060361 REGISTER User-Agent: xxx Allow: INVITE, ACK, CANCEL, OPTIONS, BYE, REFER Expires: 1200 Contact: sip:603200661@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx;user=phone;expires=1200 Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 04:36:20 GMT Content-Length: 0
Thanks.
Regards, Chia
-----Original Message----- From: serusers-bounces@iptel.org
[mailto:serusers-bounces@iptel.org] On
Behalf Of Jan Janak Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 4:39 PM To: Juan Carlos Castro y Castro Cc: serusers@iptel.org Subject: Re: [Serusers] SER losing SIP registrations
On 22-06-2005 17:57, Juan Carlos Castro y Castro wrote:
Our company has a call center implementation on a client with up
to
100 support personnel using X-Lite version 1050 softphones
running
under Windows 98. Until a few days ago, the softphones were
logged in
directly on our PBXs. Now, they log onto a separate SER 0.8.14
box
and the PBXs forward calls to SER. That was needed to unify queue management.
It works. But some softphones are being randomly kicked out of
SER,
it seems SER isn't receiving the refresh REGISTER messages from
the
softphones. The re-register timeout is set to 500 seconds on the softphones. There's a lot of "removing spare zombie" and "Binding '<user>','<url>' has expired" messages in /var/log/messages.
The message means that SER did not receive REGISTER re-fresh and
is
thus removing the contact from the user location database.
Pick one user agent that has this problem and install ngrep
monitor
on the server to monitor all REGISTER messages from that user
agent.
This way you could find out if the problem is in the user agent or network (in this case you will not see REGISTER refresh messages on
the
server) or in SER (in that case you will see them but SER probably fails to process them).
Also make sure that SER is not configured to shorten the
registration
period. When registrar receives a REGISTER message, it is free to
use
shorter expires value for the Contac than what was suggested by
the
user agent in the request. In this case the real expires value of
the
contact will be in 200 OK and user agents are suppose to pick it
up
from there and update the refresh interval accordingly. This may
not
work in the case when Contact IP address is rewritten by the
server
for the purpose of NAT traversal. In this case the user agent
will be
unable to find its contact (because it has been rewritten) and
will
not update the refresh interval (resulting in expired
registrations).
For now, we're instructing the client to increase the timeout to
10
hours on the softphones in which the problem happens most often.
I
don't know if that's really the right thing to do, I think we
should
somehow make sure the re-registers are done in a timely fashion
and
retried, but I could not find ant SER configuration option
related to
that. What should I do?
You can configure the maximum allowed expires value in SER, if a
user
agent tries to REGISTER a contact with longer expires value than
it
will be automatically updated by registrar to the value of max_expires parameter.
There is also min_expires parameter in registrar module but that
one
should not be used because the current implementation violates RFC3261.
If you are using any of the two parameter than it might be a good idea to retry without them (to see if the problem persists).
Jan.
Serusers mailing list Serusers@iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
Serusers mailing list Serusers@iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
We saw it here too, SER 0.9.2. We "addressed" the problem by changing the default expiration timer for Cisco SIP v7.3 code to 1800 seconds from 3600 seconds. Regardless which value we use the specified value is always carried in the register message expire field. We too are using public routable IP addresses. No NAT.
-Steve
listbot wrote:
Jan,
We experience the same problems over here with some of our clients, only here some of them are actually on valid IPs (no NAT). Any ideas?
Thnx, Fernando
On Thursday 23 June 2005 08:44, 'Jan Janak' wrote:
OK, the REGISTER message contains a private IP in the contact. That would force SER to rewrite the IP address with the public IP of the NAT and the user agent is probably unable to match the contact and find out what the expires value set by the server is. That explains why it works with Expires: 60 header field parameter but does not work with ;expires=60 contact parameter.
There are two options:
- Hack -- insert Expires: 50 header field into the reply using
append_to_reply function from textopts module. Note that the value you insert this way must be lower than the value of expires parameter in the contact.
- Use fix_nated_register instead of fix_nated_contact for REGISTER
messages. This function does not rewrite the IP in contact, instead it would append the public IP and port used by the NAT as a parameter of Contact header field. The two values will be stored separately in the user location database. When forwarding a message to the contact, the Request-URI will contain the private IP of the user agent, but the message will be sent to the public IP of the NAT (destination set will be used). This way the Contact in 200 OK reply will be not modified and the user agent should be able to set the expires value properly.
Jan.
On 23-06-2005 17:59, Chia Huey Lim wrote:
Sure...
SER: REGISTER sip:xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx SIP/2.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.0.4:5060;branch=z9hG4bKd9e688a70 Max-Forwards: 70 Content-Length: 0 To: 5008 sip:18182002@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx From: 5008 sip:18182002@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx;tag=1f55b6cd5586c2d Call-ID: 928d75b5b6c7d128a0ccaf24e5b52c74@192.168.0.4 CSeq: 1028949335 REGISTER Contact: 5008 sip:18182002@192.168.0.4:5060;user=phone;expires=60 Allow: NOTIFY Allow: REFER Allow: OPTIONS Allow: INVITE Allow: ACK Allow: CANCEL Allow: BYE User-Agent: InterEdge-ieta200
ASTERISK: REGISTER sip:xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx SIP/2.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.0.4;branch=z9hG4bKf91124aeb Max-Forwards: 70 Content-Length: 0 To: 603200661 sip:603200661@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx From: 603200661 sip:603200661@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx;tag=7f4a78971dd573b Call-ID: 59a4ee90d5fbe74f8de459fb2506acf0@192.168.0.4 CSeq: 937060361 REGISTER Contact: 603200661 sip:603200661@192.168.0.4;user=phone;expires=1200 Allow: NOTIFY Allow: REFER Allow: OPTIONS Allow: INVITE Allow: ACK Allow: CANCEL Allow: BYE Authorization:Digest response="869ebcdfd4f83cfd805c0b03e768b9a5",username="603200661",realm="x xx" ,nonce="297966ac",uri="sip:xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx" User-Agent: InterEdge-ieta200
Regards, Chia
-----Original Message----- From: 'Jan Janak' [mailto:jan@iptel.org] Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 5:44 PM To: Chia Huey Lim Cc: 'Juan Carlos Castro y Castro'; serusers@lists.iptel.org Subject: Re: [Serusers] SER losing SIP registrations
Could send me also the REGISTER messages ?
Jan.
On 23-06-2005 17:36, Chia Huey Lim wrote:
I am facing the same problem too, one of the UA that I am testing on does not re-register itself. It has no problem re-registering itself to
asterisk.
I compared the ethereal trace for the registration on SER and Asterisk.
And
I found that Asterisk append "Expires: xxx" above the "Contact: " while
SER
does not. Anything that I can do to append "Expires: xxx" in the 200 ok packet that SER is sending out?
Below is the comparison:
SER: ĸe`SIP/2.0 200 OK Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
192.168.0.4:5060;branch=z9hG4bKef17e9623;rport=32914;received=xxx.xxx.xxx .xx
x To: 5008 sip:18182002@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx;tag=856642a4d7f9f16db9502202a011388b.db9 a From: 5008 sip:18182002@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx;tag=1f55b6cd5586c2d Call-ID: 928d75b5b6c7d128a0ccaf24e5b52c74@192.168.0.4 CSeq: 1028949336 REGISTER
Contact:sip:18182002@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:32914;user=phone;expires=60;receiv ed=
"sip:xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:32914" Server: Sip EXpress router (0.9.0 (i386/linux)) Content-Length: 0
ASTERISK: ÄÄ x9SIP/2.0 200 OK Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.0.4;branch=z9hG4bKf91124aeb;received=xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx;rport=3291 4 From: 603200661 sip:603200661@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx;tag=7f4a78971dd573b To: 603200661 sip:603200661@xxx.xxx.xxxx.xxx;tag=as4f0c60fe Call-ID: 59a4ee90d5fbe74f8de459fb2506acf0@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx CSeq: 937060361 REGISTER User-Agent: xxx Allow: INVITE, ACK, CANCEL, OPTIONS, BYE, REFER Expires: 1200 Contact: sip:603200661@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx;user=phone;expires=1200 Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 04:36:20 GMT Content-Length: 0
Thanks.
Regards, Chia
-----Original Message----- From: serusers-bounces@iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org] On Behalf Of Jan Janak Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 4:39 PM To: Juan Carlos Castro y Castro Cc: serusers@lists.iptel.org Subject: Re: [Serusers] SER losing SIP registrations
On 22-06-2005 17:57, Juan Carlos Castro y Castro wrote:
Our company has a call center implementation on a client with up to 100 support personnel using X-Lite version 1050 softphones running under Windows 98. Until a few days ago, the softphones were logged in directly on our PBXs. Now, they log onto a separate SER 0.8.14 box and the PBXs forward calls to SER. That was needed to unify queue management.
It works. But some softphones are being randomly kicked out of SER, it seems SER isn't receiving the refresh REGISTER messages from the softphones. The re-register timeout is set to 500 seconds on the softphones. There's a lot of "removing spare zombie" and "Binding '<user>','<url>' has expired" messages in /var/log/messages.
The message means that SER did not receive REGISTER re-fresh and is thus removing the contact from the user location database.
Pick one user agent that has this problem and install ngrep monitor on the server to monitor all REGISTER messages from that user agent. This way you could find out if the problem is in the user agent or network (in this case you will not see REGISTER refresh messages on the server) or in SER (in that case you will see them but SER probably fails to process them).
Also make sure that SER is not configured to shorten the registration period. When registrar receives a REGISTER message, it is free to use shorter expires value for the Contac than what was suggested by the user agent in the request. In this case the real expires value of the contact will be in 200 OK and user agents are suppose to pick it up from there and update the refresh interval accordingly. This may not work in the case when Contact IP address is rewritten by the server for the purpose of NAT traversal. In this case the user agent will be unable to find its contact (because it has been rewritten) and will not update the refresh interval (resulting in expired registrations).
For now, we're instructing the client to increase the timeout to 10 hours on the softphones in which the problem happens most often. I don't know if that's really the right thing to do, I think we should somehow make sure the re-registers are done in a timely fashion and retried, but I could not find ant SER configuration option related to that. What should I do?
You can configure the maximum allowed expires value in SER, if a user agent tries to REGISTER a contact with longer expires value than it will be automatically updated by registrar to the value of max_expires parameter.
There is also min_expires parameter in registrar module but that one should not be used because the current implementation violates RFC3261.
If you are using any of the two parameter than it might be a good idea to retry without them (to see if the problem persists).
Jan.
Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
Wow!! It works! As I replaced fix_nated_contact with fix_nated_register for REGISTER messages, the UA has no problem re-registering. Never thought that it could be the contact that is causing the problem. Thank you so much, Jan.
Chia
-----Original Message----- From: 'Jan Janak' [mailto:jan@iptel.org] Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 7:44 PM To: Chia Huey Lim Cc: 'Juan Carlos Castro y Castro'; serusers@lists.iptel.org Subject: Re: [Serusers] SER losing SIP registrations
OK, the REGISTER message contains a private IP in the contact. That would force SER to rewrite the IP address with the public IP of the NAT and the user agent is probably unable to match the contact and find out what the expires value set by the server is. That explains why it works with Expires: 60 header field parameter but does not work with ;expires=60 contact parameter.
There are two options:
1) Hack -- insert Expires: 50 header field into the reply using append_to_reply function from textopts module. Note that the value you insert this way must be lower than the value of expires parameter in the contact.
2) Use fix_nated_register instead of fix_nated_contact for REGISTER messages. This function does not rewrite the IP in contact, instead it would append the public IP and port used by the NAT as a parameter of Contact header field. The two values will be stored separately in the user location database. When forwarding a message to the contact, the Request-URI will contain the private IP of the user agent, but the message will be sent to the public IP of the NAT (destination set will be used). This way the Contact in 200 OK reply will be not modified and the user agent should be able to set the expires value properly.
Jan.
On 23-06-2005 17:59, Chia Huey Lim wrote:
Sure...
SER: REGISTER sip:xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx SIP/2.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.0.4:5060;branch=z9hG4bKd9e688a70 Max-Forwards: 70 Content-Length: 0 To: 5008 sip:18182002@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx From: 5008 sip:18182002@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx;tag=1f55b6cd5586c2d Call-ID: 928d75b5b6c7d128a0ccaf24e5b52c74@192.168.0.4 CSeq: 1028949335 REGISTER Contact: 5008 sip:18182002@192.168.0.4:5060;user=phone;expires=60 Allow: NOTIFY Allow: REFER Allow: OPTIONS Allow: INVITE Allow: ACK Allow: CANCEL Allow: BYE User-Agent: InterEdge-ieta200
ASTERISK: REGISTER sip:xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx SIP/2.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.0.4;branch=z9hG4bKf91124aeb Max-Forwards: 70 Content-Length: 0 To: 603200661 sip:603200661@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx From: 603200661 sip:603200661@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx;tag=7f4a78971dd573b Call-ID: 59a4ee90d5fbe74f8de459fb2506acf0@192.168.0.4 CSeq: 937060361 REGISTER Contact: 603200661 sip:603200661@192.168.0.4;user=phone;expires=1200 Allow: NOTIFY Allow: REFER Allow: OPTIONS Allow: INVITE Allow: ACK Allow: CANCEL Allow: BYE Authorization:Digest
response="869ebcdfd4f83cfd805c0b03e768b9a5",username="603200661",realm="xxx"
,nonce="297966ac",uri="sip:xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx" User-Agent: InterEdge-ieta200
Regards, Chia
-----Original Message----- From: 'Jan Janak' [mailto:jan@iptel.org] Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 5:44 PM To: Chia Huey Lim Cc: 'Juan Carlos Castro y Castro'; serusers@lists.iptel.org Subject: Re: [Serusers] SER losing SIP registrations
Could send me also the REGISTER messages ?
Jan.
On 23-06-2005 17:36, Chia Huey Lim wrote:
I am facing the same problem too, one of the UA that I am testing on
does
not re-register itself. It has no problem re-registering itself to
asterisk.
I compared the ethereal trace for the registration on SER and Asterisk.
And
I found that Asterisk append "Expires: xxx" above the "Contact: " while
SER
does not. Anything that I can do to append "Expires: xxx" in the 200 ok packet that SER is sending out?
Below is the comparison:
SER: ĸe`SIP/2.0 200 OK Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
192.168.0.4:5060;branch=z9hG4bKef17e9623;rport=32914;received=xxx.xxx.xxx.xx
x To: 5008 sip:18182002@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx;tag=856642a4d7f9f16db9502202a011388b.db9a From: 5008 sip:18182002@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx;tag=1f55b6cd5586c2d Call-ID: 928d75b5b6c7d128a0ccaf24e5b52c74@192.168.0.4 CSeq: 1028949336 REGISTER
Contact:sip:18182002@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:32914;user=phone;expires=60;received=
"sip:xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:32914" Server: Sip EXpress router (0.9.0 (i386/linux)) Content-Length: 0
ASTERISK: ÄÄ x9SIP/2.0 200 OK Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.0.4;branch=z9hG4bKf91124aeb;received=xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx;rport=32914 From: 603200661 sip:603200661@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx;tag=7f4a78971dd573b To: 603200661 sip:603200661@xxx.xxx.xxxx.xxx;tag=as4f0c60fe Call-ID: 59a4ee90d5fbe74f8de459fb2506acf0@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx CSeq: 937060361 REGISTER User-Agent: xxx Allow: INVITE, ACK, CANCEL, OPTIONS, BYE, REFER Expires: 1200 Contact: sip:603200661@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx;user=phone;expires=1200 Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 04:36:20 GMT Content-Length: 0
Thanks.
Regards, Chia
-----Original Message----- From: serusers-bounces@iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org] On Behalf Of Jan Janak Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 4:39 PM To: Juan Carlos Castro y Castro Cc: serusers@lists.iptel.org Subject: Re: [Serusers] SER losing SIP registrations
On 22-06-2005 17:57, Juan Carlos Castro y Castro wrote:
Our company has a call center implementation on a client with up to
100
support personnel using X-Lite version 1050 softphones running under Windows 98. Until a few days ago, the softphones were logged in
directly
on our PBXs. Now, they log onto a separate SER 0.8.14 box and the PBXs forward calls to SER. That was needed to unify queue management.
It works. But some softphones are being randomly kicked out of SER, it seems SER isn't receiving the refresh REGISTER messages from the softphones. The re-register timeout is set to 500 seconds on the softphones. There's a lot of "removing spare zombie" and "Binding '<user>','<url>' has expired" messages in /var/log/messages.
The message means that SER did not receive REGISTER re-fresh and is thus removing the contact from the user location database.
Pick one user agent that has this problem and install ngrep monitor on the server to monitor all REGISTER messages from that user agent. This way you could find out if the problem is in the user agent or network (in this case you will not see REGISTER refresh messages on the server) or in SER (in that case you will see them but SER probably fails to process them).
Also make sure that SER is not configured to shorten the registration period. When registrar receives a REGISTER message, it is free to use shorter expires value for the Contac than what was suggested by the user agent in the request. In this case the real expires value of the contact will be in 200 OK and user agents are suppose to pick it up from there and update the refresh interval accordingly. This may not work in the case when Contact IP address is rewritten by the server for the purpose of NAT traversal. In this case the user agent will be unable to find its contact (because it has been rewritten) and will not update the refresh interval (resulting in expired registrations).
For now, we're instructing the client to increase the timeout to 10 hours on the softphones in which the problem happens most often. I
don't
know if that's really the right thing to do, I think we should somehow make sure the re-registers are done in a timely fashion and retried,
but
I could not find ant SER configuration option related to that. What should I do?
You can configure the maximum allowed expires value in SER, if a user agent tries to REGISTER a contact with longer expires value than it will be automatically updated by registrar to the value of max_expires parameter.
There is also min_expires parameter in registrar module but that one should not be used because the current implementation violates RFC3261.
If you are using any of the two parameter than it might be a good idea to retry without them (to see if the problem persists).
Jan.
-
'Jan Janak' -
Chia Huey Lim -
Innocent Evil -
Jan Janak
-
Juan Carlos Castro y Castro -
listbot -
Steve Blair