29 Apr
2010
29 Apr
'10
9:14 p.m.
Hi, i have a problem about the handling of the "cancel" message.
The call flow is this:
A -----------------> (Invite) Proxy (P)
B
(100 Tryng) <---------------------------
----------------->(Invite) B
(100 Tryng) <---------------------------
(183 Progress) <---------------------------
(183 Progress) <---------------------------
(200 OK) <---------------------------
(200 OK) <---------------------------
--------------------------------->(CANCEL)
(200 canceling) <---------------------------
(200 OK) <---------------------------
(200 OK) <---------------------------
----------------->(ACK)
----------------->(ACK)
(BYE) <---------------------------
(BYE) <---------------------------
----------------->(481 Call Leg/Transaction Does Not Exist)
----------------->(481 Call Leg/Transaction Does Not Exist)
The B side answer with OK, after a while , a send a CANCEL. I don't know why
Kamailio don't forward this message to the B side.
B retry to send the OK message, then A send the ACK.
At the end , B send BYE , but A don't have the transactin.
In this situation, kamailio should deliver the "CANCEL" to the B side ?
(even if, before B send the OK )
Or the proxy should not consider the CANCEL because B has answered with
"OK" ?
Where is the error on my configuration ?
Thanks
I have Kamailio 1.5.3 and my configuration is this:
modparam("siptrace", "trace_on", 0)
modparam("carrierroute", "config_source", "db")
modparam("auth_db", "password_column", "ha1")
modparam("auth_db", "use_domain", 1)
modparam("usrloc", "db_mode", 2)
#modparam("usrloc","nat_bflag", 8)
modparam("permissions", "trusted_table", "trusted")
modparam("permissions", "db_mode", 1)
modparam("permissions", "peer_tag_avp", "$avp(i:707)")
modparam("mi_fifo", "fifo_name", "/tmp/kamailio_fifo")
modparam("avpops","avp_table","usr_preferences")
modparam("avpops","attribute_column","attribute")
modparam("avpops","value_column","value")
modparam("uac","from_restore_mode","auto")
modparam("tm", "fr_timer", 12)
modparam("tm", "wt_timer", 32)
modparam("rr", "append_fromtag", 1)
#modparam("rr", "enable_full_lr", 1)
modparam("userblacklist", "use_domain", 0)
#modparam("dialog", "dlg_flag", 2)
modparam("registrar|nathelper", "received_avp",
"$avp(i:42)")
#modparam("registrar", "min_expires", 17000)
modparam("acc", "db_flag", 2)
modparam("acc", "db_missed_flag", 3)
modparam("acc", "db_table_acc", "acc")
modparam("acc", "db_table_missed_calls", "missed_calls")
modparam("acc", "detect_direction", 1)
route{
# -----------------------------------------------------------------
# Sanity Check Section
# -----------------------------------------------------------------
if (!mf_process_maxfwd_header("10"))
{
sl_send_reply("483", "Too Many Hops");
exit;
};
if (msg:len > max_len)
{
sl_send_reply("513", "Message Overflow");
exit;
};
# -----------------------------------------------------------------
# Preprocessing
# -----------------------------------------------------------------
if (!method=="REGISTER") record_route();
# -----------------------------------------------------------------
# NAT Detection
# -----------------------------------------------------------------
force_rport();
if (nat_uac_test("19")) {
if (method=="REGISTER") {
fix_nated_register();
} else {
fix_nated_contact();
}
setflag(7);
}
# -----------------------------------------------------------------
#
# -----------------------------------------------------------------
sip_trace();
##Loose_route packets
if (has_totag()) {
if (loose_route()) {
if(method=="BYE") {
#Account BYE
transactions
setflag(2);
};
route(2);
} else {
if ( is_method("ACK") ) {
if ( t_check_trans() ) {
# non
loose-route, but stateful ACK;
# must be an ACK
after a 487 or e.g. 404 from upstream server
t_relay();
exit;
} else {
# ACK without matching
transaction ... ignore and discard.\n");
exit;
}
}
sl_send_reply("404","Not
here");
}
exit;
}
# -----------------------------------------------------------------
# CANCEL processing
# -----------------------------------------------------------------
if (is_method("CANCEL")) {
if (t_check_trans()) t_relay();
exit;
};
t_check_trans();
# -----------------------------------------------------------------
#
# -----------------------------------------------------------------
if (method =="OPTIONS" || method=="SUBSCRIBE")
{exit;};
if (method =="REGISTER") {route(3);};
route(1);
}
route[2]
{
t_on_reply("1");
if (!t_relay()) {
sl_reply_error();
};
exit;
}
..
failure_route[2] {
if (t_was_cancelled()) {
# xlog("INFO:cancelled transaction--\n");
exit;
}
revert_uri();
..
t_on_failure("2");
append_branch();
if (!t_relay()) {
exit;
};
}
30 Apr
30 Apr
10:22 a.m.
2010/4/29 pars3c <pars3c(a)gmail.com>om>:
Hi, i have a problem about the handling of the
“cancel” message.
The B side answer with OK, after a while , a send a
CANCEL. I don’t know why
Kamailio don’t forward this message to the B side.
Because Kamailio already received a 200 for the INVITE transaction so
it's terminated, there is nothing to cancel hen the CANCEL arrives.
B retry to send the OK message, then A send the ACK.
At the end , B send BYE , but A don’t have the transactin.
This is because Kamailio replied 200 to the CANCEL so A still believes
it has cancelled and has terminated it locally.
Perhaps Kamailio should reply 404 to the CANCEL as a 200 was already
received for the INVITE (could it be a bug?).
However your UAC is doing strange things:
- Why does A send a CANCEL after receiving a 200 OK for the INVITE?
- Also if A sends an ACK for the 200 (INVITE) it *does* know that the
transaction is still alive so shouldn't reply 481.
The behavior of UAC A is not very common and seems buggy IMHO.
--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc(a)aliax.net>
10:53 a.m.
200 OK seems correct as long as the transaction is still in memory.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3261#section-9.2
regards
klaus
Am 30.04.2010 10:22, schrieb Iñaki Baz Castillo:
2010/4/29 pars3c<pars3c(a)gmail.com>om>:
Hi, i have a problem about the handling of the
“cancel” message.
The B side answer with OK, after a while , a send
a CANCEL. I don’t know why
Kamailio don’t forward this message to the B side.
Because Kamailio already received a 200 for the INVITE transaction so
it's terminated, there is nothing to cancel hen the CANCEL arrives.
B retry to send the OK message, then A send the
ACK.
At the end , B send BYE , but A don’t have the transactin.
This is because Kamailio replied 200 to the CANCEL so A still believes
it has cancelled and has terminated it locally.
Perhaps Kamailio should reply 404 to the CANCEL as a 200 was already
received for the INVITE (could it be a bug?).
However your UAC is doing strange things:
- Why does A send a CANCEL after receiving a 200 OK for the INVITE?
- Also if A sends an ACK for the 200 (INVITE) it *does* know that the
transaction is still alive so shouldn't reply 481.
The behavior of UAC A is not very common and seems buggy IMHO.
11:37 a.m.
2010/4/30 Klaus Darilion <klaus.mailinglists(a)pernau.at>at>:
200 OK seems correct as long as the transaction is
still in memory.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3261#section-9.2
I don't agree. As per RFC 3261 when a proxy receives a 200 for an
INVITE the transaction is terminated so a CANCEL after the 200 should
not match such transaction. Then the proxy should reply 481 to the
CANCEL rather than a 200.
--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc(a)aliax.net>
11:49 a.m.
Am 30.04.2010 11:37, schrieb Iñaki Baz Castillo:
2010/4/30 Klaus
Darilion<klaus.mailinglists(a)pernau.at>at>:
If the transaction
for the original request still exists, the behavior of the UAS on
receiving a CANCEL request depends on whether it has already sent a
final response for the original request.
This means that the transaction may still exists although the 200 OK was
already sent (to absorb retransmissions)
Regardless of the method of the original request, as long as the
CANCEL matched an existing transaction, the UAS answers the CANCEL
request itself with a 200 (OK) response.
So 200 OK is fine. If it makes sense is a different point.
regards
klaus
200 OK seems correct as long as the transaction
is still in memory.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3261#section-9.2
I don't agree. As per RFC 3261 when a proxy receives a 200 for an
INVITE the transaction is terminated so a CANCEL after the 200 should
not match such transaction. Then the proxy should reply 481 to the
CANCEL rather than a 200.
12:07 p.m.
2010/4/30 Klaus Darilion <klaus.mailinglists(a)pernau.at>at>:
No, in RFC 3261 a INVTE transaction ends after a 200 is received,
there is no state to absorbe retransmissions.
In draft invfix the transaction is not inmediately removed upon
receipt of a 200, instead it gets into a new "Accepted" state which
allows absorbing ***INVITE*** retransmissions.
But anyway, if the INVITE has been replied with a 200 it makes no
sense at all to send a CANCEL so the proxy shouldn't reply 200 to the
CANCEL, but a 481.
I don't
agree. As per RFC 3261 when a proxy receives a 200 for an
INVITE the transaction is terminated so a CANCEL after the 200 should
not match such transaction. Then the proxy should reply 481 to the
CANCEL rather than a 200.
If the transaction
for the original request still exists, the behavior of the UAS on
receiving a CANCEL request depends on whether it has already sent a
final response for the original request.
This means that the transaction may still exists although the 200 OK was
already sent (to absorb retransmissions) Regardless of the method of the original request, as
long as the
CANCEL matched an existing transaction, the UAS answers the CANCEL
request itself with a 200 (OK) response.
So 200 OK is fine. If it makes sense is a different point.
Again, RFC 3261 states that the transaction MUST be terminated when
the 200 arrives so the CANCEL after it shouldn't match the
transaction.
In case of draft invfix, IMHO it has a bug in the specification (still
a draft) since it says nothing aobut the CANCEL. It doesn't make sense
that a proxy or UAS replies 200 to a CANCEL if the proxy or UAS
already sent a 200 for the INVITE.
draft invfix: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sipcore-invfix-01
--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc(a)aliax.net>
12:21 p.m.
2010/4/30 Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc(a)aliax.net>et>:
But anyway, if the INVITE has been replied with a 200
it makes no
sense at all to send a CANCEL so the proxy shouldn't reply 200 to the
CANCEL, but a 481.
Not exactly, sorry, the proxy should forward the CANCEL stateless:
16.10 CANCEL Processing
[...]
If a response context is not found, the element does not have any
knowledge of the request to apply the CANCEL to. It MUST statelessly
forward the CANCEL request (it may have statelessly forwarded the
associated request previously).
--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc(a)aliax.net>
3 May
3 May
3:04 p.m.
On Friday 30 April 2010, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
[..]
Not exactly, sorry, the proxy should forward the CANCEL stateless:
16.10 CANCEL Processing
[...]
If a response context is not found, the element does not have any
knowledge of the request to apply the CANCEL to. It MUST statelessly
forward the CANCEL request (it may have statelessly forwarded the
associated request previously).
Hi Iñaki,
ok, but i think in the default server configuration we don't do it this way:
if (is_method("CANCEL"))
{
if (t_check_trans())
t_relay();
exit;
}
We just drop them. In the sr configuration i think there is also a similar
method implemented (etc/sip-router.cfg, route[CATCH_CANCEL]). In the past on
our systems we've tried to forward them stateless, but this created some loop
conditions, if i remember correctly. Sending a final response to the CANCEL
(e.g. 491) also not worked out really well.
Henning
7:32 p.m.
2010/5/3 Henning Westerholt <henning.westerholt(a)1und1.de>de>:
Hi Henning, the problem is that the transaction still remains in
memory for a while after the 200 has been routed (this is correct
according to invfix draft which covers a bug in RFC 3261). So the
CANCEL after the 200 *does* match the transaction in TM and then
kamailio replies 200 for the CANCEL (which doesn't make sense as there
is nothing to cancel).
After the proxy relays the 200 for the INVITE the transaction gets in
"Accepted" state (draft invfix) for a while. During this state a
CANCEL would match the transaction but it shouldn't generate a 200 for
such CANCEL (it's better to ignore it or reply 481).
Regards.
PS: I've open a thread in sip-implementors about this topic.
--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc(a)aliax.net>
16.10 CANCEL
Processing
[...]
If a response context is not found, the element does not have any
knowledge of the request to apply the CANCEL to. It MUST statelessly
forward the CANCEL request (it may have statelessly forwarded the
associated request previously).
Hi Iñaki,
ok, but i think in the default server configuration we don't do it this way:
if (is_method("CANCEL"))
{
if (t_check_trans())
t_relay();
exit;
}
We just drop them. In the sr configuration i think there is also a similar
method implemented (etc/sip-router.cfg, route[CATCH_CANCEL]). In the past on
our systems we've tried to forward them stateless, but this created some loop
conditions, if i remember correctly. Sending a final response to the CANCEL
(e.g. 491) also not worked out really well.
4 May
4 May
10:08 a.m.
On Monday 03 May 2010, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
Hi Iñaki,
ah, i thought you refer here to the general handling of CANCEL messages. Now
it makes more sense for me, thanks for the clarification.
Cheers,
Henning
We just drop
them. In the sr configuration i think there is also a
similar method implemented (etc/sip-router.cfg, route[CATCH_CANCEL]). In
the past on our systems we've tried to forward them stateless, but this
created some loop conditions, if i remember correctly. Sending a final
response to the CANCEL (e.g. 491) also not worked out really well.
Hi Henning, the problem is that the transaction still remains in
memory for a while after the 200 has been routed (this is correct
according to invfix draft which covers a bug in RFC 3261). So the
CANCEL after the 200 *does* match the transaction in TM and then
kamailio replies 200 for the CANCEL (which doesn't make sense as there
is nothing to cancel).
After the proxy relays the 200 for the INVITE the transaction gets in
"Accepted" state (draft invfix) for a while. During this state a
CANCEL would match the transaction but it shouldn't generate a 200 for
such CANCEL (it's better to ignore it or reply 481). 
30 Apr
30 Apr
12:48 p.m.
Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
2010/4/30 Klaus Darilion
<klaus.mailinglists(a)pernau.at>at>:
That's a bug in the RFC and we shall not better projects RFC bugs in
implementations :) A well behaving proxy shall keep the context for
some period of time.
200 OK seems correct as long as the transaction
is still in memory.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3261#section-9.2
I don't agree. As per RFC 3261 when a proxy receives a 200 for an
INVITE the transaction is terminated so a CANCEL after the 200 should
not match such transaction. Then the proxy should reply 481 to the
CANCEL rather than a 200.
well, once the transaction is gone, forwarding the CANCEL statelessly
would seem a legitimiate behaviour, as long as the proxy is in position
to produce branch ID consistently with that for INVITE.
-jiri
1:25 p.m.
2010/4/30 Jiri Kuthan <jiri(a)iptel.org>rg>:
Yes, I agree. In fact draft invfix solves it by adding a new state
"Accepted" so when a 200 is sent the server transaction remains in
memory for a while (to absorbe INVITE retransmissions).
But anyway the transaction is in "Accepted" state, and not in
"Proceeding", so a CANCEL should have no effect and the proxy
shouldn't reply 200 for the CANCEL as the proxy has canceled
*nothing*.
Yes, in fact this is the behavior RFC 3261:
16.10 CANCEL Processing
[...]
If a response context is not found, the element does not have any
knowledge of the request to apply the CANCEL to. It MUST statelessly
forward the CANCEL request (it may have statelessly forwarded the
associated request previously).
But again, what does "response context is not found"?:
- In RFC 3261 it means that the transaction server is terminated as
per RFC 3261 it is ended when a 200 arrives and is forwarded
(immediately).
- But in draft invfix the transaction remains in "Accepted" state upon
receipt of a 200 (to absorbe INVITE retransmissions). So the section
16.10 should be rewriten as:
"If a response context in state Proceeding is not found, the
element does not have any
knowledge of the request to apply the CANCEL to."
Regards.
--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc(a)aliax.net>
I don't
agree. As per RFC 3261 when a proxy receives a 200 for an
INVITE the transaction is terminated so a CANCEL after the 200 should
not match such transaction.
That's a bug in the RFC and we shall not better projects RFC bugs in
implementations :) A well behaving proxy shall keep the context for
some period of time. Then the
proxy should reply 481 to the
CANCEL rather than a 200.
well, once the transaction is gone, forwarding the CANCEL statelessly
would seem a legitimiate behaviour, as long as the proxy is in position
to produce branch ID consistently with that for INVITE. 
4 May
4 May
6:14 p.m.
On Friday 30 April 2010 13:25:13 Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
Yes, I agree. In fact draft invfix solves it by adding
a new state
"Accepted" so when a 200 is sent the server transaction remains in
memory for a while (to absorbe INVITE retransmissions).
But anyway the transaction is in "Accepted" state, and not in
"Proceeding", so a CANCEL should have no effect and the proxy
shouldn't reply 200 for the CANCEL as the proxy has canceled
*nothing*.
The response to the CANCEL doesn't indicate if anything has been canceled
(just that the CANCEL is well received), the response to the INVITE does.
Answering 200 OK to the CANCEL is the least interuptive response as it won't
trigger an error in the UAC. A 481 might trigger that the call is aborted as
the UAC might think the dialog is invalid. If the 200 OK is received by the
UAC, it should handle it just like the well known INVITE + 200 OK / CANCEL
race for which it should send a BYE if the dialog is to be ended.
--
Alex Hermann
8 May
8 May
3:42 p.m.
2010/5/4 Alex Hermann <alex(a)speakup.nl>nl>:
On Friday 30 April 2010 13:25:13 Iñaki Baz Castillo
wrote:
Interesting point of view. Maybe it's just easier as you describe.
--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc(a)aliax.net>
Yes, I agree. In fact draft invfix solves it by
adding a new state
"Accepted" so when a 200 is sent the server transaction remains in
memory for a while (to absorbe INVITE retransmissions).
But anyway the transaction is in "Accepted" state, and not in
"Proceeding", so a CANCEL should have no effect and the proxy
shouldn't reply 200 for the CANCEL as the proxy has canceled
*nothing*.
The response to the CANCEL doesn't indicate if anything has been canceled
(just that the CANCEL is well received), the response to the INVITE does.
Answering 200 OK to the CANCEL is the least interuptive response as it won't
trigger an error in the UAC. A 481 might trigger that the call is aborted as
the UAC might think the dialog is invalid. If the 200 OK is received by the
UAC, it should handle it just like the well known INVITE + 200 OK / CANCEL
race for which it should send a BYE if the dialog is to be ended.
5096
days inactive
5105
days old
13 comments
6 participants
participants (6)
-
Alex Hermann -
Henning Westerholt -
Iñaki Baz Castillo -
Jiri Kuthan -
Klaus Darilion -
pars3c