new in upcoming Kamailio 5.4.0

List overview All Threads
Download

newer

older

HEP siptrace HEPv3 truncated and...

TAS recommendation

Henning Westerholt

9 Jul 2020 9 Jul '20

2:01 p.m.

Hello, I've updated the "New in version 5.4.0" document in our wiki. It is again an impressive list! * In this development period (started October 2019) almost 1500 commits have been added to the repository * 5 new modules have been added (pv_headers, kafka, secsipid, systemdops, dlgs) * Over 70 modules have been extended, many of them substantially (dispatcher, pv, tls, presence etc..) * Countless bugfixes and documentation extensions/fixes have been added as well * Many refactorings, extensions and architectural improvements were done in Kamailio core, tooling and modules You'll find the full details at the usual place: https://www.kamailio.org/wiki/features/new-in-5.4.x Many thanks to everybody that contributed to the Kamailio project. Cheers, Henning -- Henning Westerholt - https://skalatan.de/blog/ Kamailio services - https://gilawa.com<https://gilawa.com/>

Attachments:

attachment.html (text/html — 6.5 KB)

Show replies by date

Daniel-Constantin Mierla

9 Jul 9 Jul

2:29 p.m.

Hello, thanks for taking time to do it, really appreciated! Cheers, Daniel On 09.07.20 14:01, Henning Westerholt wrote:

...

Hello, I’ve updated the “New in version 5.4.0” document in our wiki. It is again an impressive list! * In this development period (started October 2019) almost 1500 commits have been added to the repository * 5 new modules have been added (pv_headers, kafka, secsipid, systemdops, dlgs) * Over 70 modules have been extended, many of them substantially (dispatcher, pv, tls, presence etc..) * Countless bugfixes and documentation extensions/fixes have been added as well * Many refactorings, extensions and architectural improvements were done in Kamailio core, tooling and modules You’ll find the full details at the usual place: https://www.kamailio.org/wiki/features/new-in-5.4.x Many thanks to everybody that contributed to the Kamailio project. Cheers, Henning -- Henning Westerholt – https://skalatan.de/blog/ Kamailio services – https://gilawa.com <https://gilawa.com/> _______________________________________________ Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users

-- Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- www.asipto.com www.twitter.com/miconda -- www.linkedin.com/in/miconda Funding: https://www.paypal.me/dcmierla

Juha Heinanen

14 Jul 14 Jul

12:36 p.m.

Henning Westerholt writes:

...

* 5 new modules have been added (pv_headers, kafka, secsipid, * systemdops, dlgs)

Could not find many of these on page: https://kamailio.org/docs/modules/devel/ -- Juha

Henning Westerholt

12:49 p.m.

New subject: [sr-dev] new in upcoming Kamailio 5.4.0

Hi Juha, yes, this overview pages are not autogenerated. I will add the missing there this evening as well. Cheers, Henning -- Henning Westerholt - https://skalatan.de/blog/ Kamailio services - https://gilawa.com -----Original Message----- From: sr-dev <sr-dev-bounces(a)lists.kamailio.org> On Behalf Of Juha Heinanen Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2020 12:37 PM To: Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List <sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org> Cc: Kamailio (SER) - Development Mailing List <sr-dev(a)lists.kamailio.org> Subject: [sr-dev] [SR-Users] new in upcoming Kamailio 5.4.0 Henning Westerholt writes:

...

* 5 new modules have been added (pv_headers, kafka, secsipid, * systemdops, dlgs)

Daniel-Constantin Mierla

6:09 p.m.

New subject: [sr-dev] new in upcoming Kamailio 5.4.0

Hello, we discussed couple of time to put such files on a git repo, to make it easier for others to update them ... maybe I get time for them this summer. Cheers, Daniel On 14.07.20 12:49, Henning Westerholt wrote:

...

* 5 new modules have been added (pv_headers, kafka, secsipid, * systemdops, dlgs)

Could not find many of these on page: https://kamailio.org/docs/modules/devel/ -- Juha _______________________________________________ Kamailio (SER) - Development Mailing List sr-dev(a)lists.kamailio.org https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev _______________________________________________ Kamailio (SER) - Development Mailing List sr-dev(a)lists.kamailio.org https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev

-- Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- www.asipto.com www.twitter.com/miconda -- www.linkedin.com/in/miconda Funding: https://www.paypal.me/dcmierla

Henning Westerholt

11 p.m.

New subject: [sr-dev] new in upcoming Kamailio 5.4.0

Hello, done - I've also added the appropriate scripts for the html auto-generation for this branch. Cheers, Henning -- Henning Westerholt – https://skalatan.de/blog/ Kamailio services – https://gilawa.com -----Original Message----- From: Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda(a)gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2020 6:10 PM To: Kamailio (SER) - Development Mailing List <sr-dev(a)lists.kamailio.org>rg>; Henning Westerholt <hw(a)skalatan.de>de>; Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List <sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org> Subject: Re: [sr-dev] [SR-Users] new in upcoming Kamailio 5.4.0 Hello, we discussed couple of time to put such files on a git repo, to make it easier for others to update them ... maybe I get time for them this summer. Cheers, Daniel On 14.07.20 12:49, Henning Westerholt wrote:

...

* 5 new modules have been added (pv_headers, kafka, secsipid, * systemdops, dlgs)

-- Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- www.asipto.com www.twitter.com/miconda -- www.linkedin.com/in/miconda Funding: https://www.paypal.me/dcmierla

Gerry | Rigatta

22 Jul 22 Jul

8:57 p.m.

New subject: bug ? remap_503_500 breaks dialogs

Hi, I am using Kamailio 5.2. Apparently the remapping of 503 to 500 codes in the tm module does also change the to-tag. This behaviour breaks dialogs with yate and therefore calls hang and the 503 remains unacknowledged. After disabling the 503 to 500 remapping with modparam("tm", "remap_503_500", 0) all works fine again. Changing the to-tag in a dialog seems to contradict RFC3261, or do I see this wrongly? 12 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3261#section-12> Dialogs A dialog is identified at each UA with a dialog ID, which consists of a Call-ID value, a local tag and a remote tag…" Thanks for looking into this. Gerry

Henning Westerholt

9:06 p.m.

New subject: bug ? remap_503_500 breaks dialogs

Hello, Apparently, this is the way the code works: t_reply.c: if (relayed_code==503 && tm_remap_503_500){ /* replace a final 503 with a 500: * generate a "FAKE" reply and a new to_tag (for easier * debugging)*/ Lets see if maybe others can comment as well. Otherwise you could just open an issue on our tracker, it is probably not that hard to change this. Cheers, Henning -- Henning Westerholt – https://skalatan.de/blog/ Kamailio services – https://gilawa.com<https://gilawa.com/> From: sr-users <sr-users-bounces(a)lists.kamailio.org> On Behalf Of Gerry | Rigatta Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2020 8:58 PM To: Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List <sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org> Subject: [SR-Users] bug ? remap_503_500 breaks dialogs Hi, I am using Kamailio 5.2. Apparently the remapping of 503 to 500 codes in the tm module does also change the to-tag. This behaviour breaks dialogs with yate and therefore calls hang and the 503 remains unacknowledged. After disabling the 503 to 500 remapping with modparam("tm", "remap_503_500", 0) all works fine again. Changing the to-tag in a dialog seems to contradict RFC3261, or do I see this wrongly? 12<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3261#section-12> Dialogs A dialog is identified at each UA with a dialog ID, which consists of a Call-ID value, a local tag and a remote tag…" Thanks for looking into this. Gerry

M S

23 Jul 23 Jul

6:08 a.m.

New subject: bug ? remap_503_500 breaks dialogs

...

Hello, Apparently, this is the way the code works: t_reply.c: if (relayed_code==503 && tm_remap_503_500){ /* replace a final 503 with a 500: * generate a "FAKE" reply and a new to_tag (for easier * debugging)*/ Lets see if maybe others can comment as well. Otherwise you could just open an issue on our tracker, it is probably not that hard to change this. Cheers, Henning -- Henning Westerholt – https://skalatan.de/blog/ Kamailio services – https://gilawa.com *From:* sr-users <sr-users-bounces(a)lists.kamailio.org> *On Behalf Of *Gerry | Rigatta *Sent:* Wednesday, July 22, 2020 8:58 PM *To:* Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List <sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org> *Subject:* [SR-Users] bug ? remap_503_500 breaks dialogs Hi, I am using Kamailio 5.2. Apparently the remapping of 503 to 500 codes in the tm module does also change the to-tag. This behaviour breaks dialogs with yate and therefore calls hang and the 503 remains unacknowledged. After disabling the 503 to 500 remapping with modparam("tm", "remap_503_500", 0) all works fine again. Changing the to-tag in a dialog seems to contradict RFC3261, or do I see this wrongly? 12 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3261#section-12> Dialogs A dialog is identified at each UA with a dialog ID, which consists of a Call-ID value, a local tag and a remote tag…" Thanks for looking into this. Gerry _______________________________________________ Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users

Daniel-Constantin Mierla

9:07 a.m.

New subject: bug ? remap_503_500 breaks dialogs

Indeed, at this stage there is no dialog established and there can be many To-tags in 1xx provisional responses (eg, a parallel forking scenario) -- the to-tag of the dialog has to be taken from 200ok. This parameter is probably to have a shortcut of doing: failure_route[REMAP503] { if(t_check_status("503")) { t_reply("500", "Server error"); exit; } Being like the server application is generating the 500 (so using own tag), instead of forwarding the 503. Not a bug, but if anyone is willing to add an option to allow re-using the to-tag from received reply, I am fine with it. Anyhow, even if this would be fixed, I am wondering how yate is going to work in parallel/serial forking scenarios where different to-tags flow for a while and the final failure response can have any to-tag, including a new one (e.g., from a device not sending any 1xx or again from kamailio (e.g., when last target doesn't reply at all)). Cheers, Daniel On 23.07.20 06:08, M S wrote:

...

The SIP code 503 is tricky in the sense that i can indicate either server maintenance or server overload. In both cases it can send Retry-After header and any subsequent requests from same source are ignored for the duration of Retry-After interval. [1]. Additionally RFC3261 and RFC3263 define that transport failures (generally due to fatal ICMP errors in UDP and connection failures in TCP) should be treated as 503 response. [2]. So in all above cases, it is most likely that dialog does not establishes at all and 503 response is treated similar to stateless response. Therefore, a to-tag can be added/replaced before sending it to UAC. Theoretically, kamailio should check and use to-tag from 503 response when converting it to 500 response and only create new to-tag if it is absent. References: [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3261#section-21.5.4 [2] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hilt-sip-correction-503-01#section-4 Hope this helps. On Wed, 22 Jul 2020 at 21:08, Henning Westerholt <hw(a)skalatan.de <mailto:hw@skalatan.de>> wrote: Hello, Apparently, this is the way the code works: t_reply.c: if (relayed_code==503 && tm_remap_503_500){ /* replace a final 503 with a 500: * generate a "FAKE" reply and a new to_tag (for easier * debugging)*/ Lets see if maybe others can comment as well. Otherwise you could just open an issue on our tracker, it is probably not that hard to change this. Cheers, Henning -- Henning Westerholt – https://skalatan.de/blog/ Kamailio services – https://gilawa.com <https://gilawa.com/> *From:* sr-users <sr-users-bounces(a)lists.kamailio.org <mailto:sr-users-bounces@lists.kamailio.org>> *On Behalf Of *Gerry | Rigatta *Sent:* Wednesday, July 22, 2020 8:58 PM *To:* Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List <sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org <mailto:sr-users@lists.kamailio.org>> *Subject:* [SR-Users] bug ? remap_503_500 breaks dialogs Hi, I am using Kamailio 5.2. Apparently the remapping of 503 to 500 codes in the tm module does also change the to-tag. This behaviour breaks dialogs with yate and therefore calls hang and the 503 remains unacknowledged. After disabling the 503 to 500 remapping with modparam("tm", "remap_503_500", 0) all works fine again. Changing the to-tag in a dialog seems to contradict RFC3261, or do I see this wrongly? 12<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3261#section-12>Dialogs A dialog is identified at each UA with a dialog ID, which consists of a Call-ID value, a local tag and a remote tag…" Thanks for looking into this. Gerry _______________________________________________ Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org <mailto:sr-users@lists.kamailio.org> https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users _______________________________________________ Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users

-- Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- www.asipto.com www.twitter.com/miconda -- www.linkedin.com/in/miconda Funding: https://www.paypal.me/dcmierla

Gerry | Rigatta

9:41 a.m.

New subject: bug ? remap_503_500 breaks dialogs

...

As far as I read this is not correct. Also a provisional dialog is a dialog according to RFC3261. Only in the case that the request did not contain a to-tag the provisional messages may insert their own to-tags: "1xx and 2xx responses may be involved in the establishment of dialogs. When a request does not contain a To tag, the To tag in the response is used by the UAC to distinguish multiple responses to a dialog creating request. A proxy MUST NOT insert a tag into the To header field of a 1xx or 2xx response if the request did not contain one. A proxy MUST NOT modify the tag in the To header field of a 1xx or 2xx response.” https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3261#page-111 In any case, this bug is not a about provisional messages. The 500 message terminates the dialog for the UAC (yate) and the UAC needs to be able to identify it. An UAC identifies the dialog by the call-id, local tag and remote tag.

...

> 12 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3261#section-12> Dialogs > > A dialog is identified at each UA with a dialog ID, which consists of a Call-ID value, a local tag and a remote tag…" >

> On 23 Jul 2020, at 10:07, Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda(a)gmail.com> wrote: >

...

> This parameter is probably to have a shortcut of doing: > > failure_route[REMAP503] { > > if(t_check_status("503")) { > > t_reply("500", "Server error"); > exit; > > } > > Being like the server application is generating the 500 (so using own tag), instead of forwarding the 503. Not a bug, but if anyone is willing to add an option to allow re-using the to-tag from received reply, I am fine with it. > > Anyhow, even if this would be fixed, I am wondering how yate is going to work in parallel/serial forking scenarios where different to-tags flow for a while and the final failure response can have any to-tag, including a new one (e.g., from a device not sending any 1xx or again from kamailio (e.g., when last target doesn't reply at all)). > > Cheers, > Daniel > > On 23.07.20 06:08, M S wrote: >> The SIP code 503 is tricky in the sense that i can indicate either server maintenance or server overload. In both cases it can send Retry-After header and any subsequent requests from same source are ignored for the duration of Retry-After interval. [1]. >> >> Additionally RFC3261 and RFC3263 define that transport failures (generally due to fatal ICMP errors in UDP and connection failures in TCP) should be treated as 503 response. [2]. >> >> So in all above cases, it is most likely that dialog does not establishes at all and 503 response is treated similar to stateless response. Therefore, a to-tag can be added/replaced before sending it to UAC. >> >> Theoretically, kamailio should check and use to-tag from 503 response when converting it to 500 response and only create new to-tag if it is absent. >> >> References: >> >> [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3261#section-21.5.4 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3261#section-21.5.4> >> >> [2] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hilt-sip-correction-503-01#section-4 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hilt-sip-correction-503-01#section-4> >> >> Hope this helps. >> >> >> >> On Wed, 22 Jul 2020 at 21:08, Henning Westerholt <hw(a)skalatan.de <mailto:hw@skalatan.de>> wrote: >> Hello, >> >> >> Apparently, this is the way the code works: >> >> >> t_reply.c: >> >> if (relayed_code==503 && tm_remap_503_500){ >> >> /* replace a final 503 with a 500: >> >> * generate a "FAKE" reply and a new to_tag (for easier >> >> * debugging)*/ >> >> >> Lets see if maybe others can comment as well. Otherwise you could just open an issue on our tracker, it is probably not that hard to change this. >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> >> Henning >> >> >> -- >> >> Henning Westerholt – https://skalatan.de/blog/ <https://skalatan.de/blog/> >> Kamailio services – https://gilawa.com <https://gilawa.com/> >> >> From: sr-users <sr-users-bounces(a)lists.kamailio.org <mailto:sr-users-bounces@lists.kamailio.org>> On Behalf Of Gerry | Rigatta >> Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2020 8:58 PM >> To: Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List <sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org <mailto:sr-users@lists.kamailio.org>> >> Subject: [SR-Users] bug ? remap_503_500 breaks dialogs >> >> >> Hi, >> >> >> I am using Kamailio 5.2. >> >> >> Apparently the remapping of 503 to 500 codes in the tm module does also change the to-tag. This behaviour breaks dialogs with yate and therefore calls hang and the 503 remains unacknowledged. After disabling the 503 to 500 remapping with modparam("tm", "remap_503_500", 0) all works fine again. >> >> >> Changing the to-tag in a dialog seems to contradict RFC3261, or do I see this wrongly? >> >> <>12 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3261#section-12> Dialogs >> >> A dialog is identified at each UA with a dialog ID, which consists of a Call-ID value, a local tag and a remote tag…" >> >> >> Thanks for looking into this. >> >> >> Gerry >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List >> sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org <mailto:sr-users@lists.kamailio.org> >> https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users <https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List >> sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org <mailto:sr-users@lists.kamailio.org> >> https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users <https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users> > -- > Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- www.asipto.com <http://www.asipto.com/> > www.twitter.com/miconda <http://www.twitter.com/miconda> -- www.linkedin.com/in/miconda <http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda> > Funding: https://www.paypal.me/dcmierla <https://www.paypal.me/dcmierla>_______________________________________________ > Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List > sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org > https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users

Daniel-Constantin Mierla

9:51 a.m.

New subject: bug ? remap_503_500 breaks dialogs

Did the initial INVITE received the 200ok, the call is connected and this is the case of a re-INVITE? In such case the dialog has to be terminated by a BYE. If the call is not established, so it is between initial INVITE and no 200ok was received, then the INVITE request did not contain the To-tag. And what is done by Kamailio is valid as per email responses so far. Maybe you can just send the ngrep output with all sip requests/replies for this case and we can see exactly which scenario you talk about. Cheers, Daniel On 23.07.20 09:41, Gerry | Rigatta wrote:

...

> > 12<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3261#section-12> Dialogs > > > A dialog is identified at each UA with a dialog ID, which > consists of a Call-ID value, a local tag and a remote tag…" >

> On 23 Jul 2020, at 10:07, Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda(a)gmail.com > <mailto:miconda@gmail.com>> wrote:

> This parameter is probably to have a shortcut of doing: > > failure_route[REMAP503] { > > if(t_check_status("503")) { > > t_reply("500", "Server error"); > exit; > > } > > Being like the server application is generating the 500 (so using own > tag), instead of forwarding the 503. Not a bug, but if anyone is > willing to add an option to allow re-using the to-tag from received > reply, I am fine with it. > > Anyhow, even if this would be fixed, I am wondering how yate is going > to work in parallel/serial forking scenarios where different to-tags > flow for a while and the final failure response can have any to-tag, > including a new one (e.g., from a device not sending any 1xx or again > from kamailio (e.g., when last target doesn't reply at all)). > > Cheers, > Daniel > > On 23.07.20 06:08, M S wrote: >> The SIP code 503 is tricky in the sense that i can indicate either >> server maintenance or server overload. In both cases it can send >> Retry-After header and any subsequent requests from same source are >> ignored for the duration of Retry-After interval. [1]. >> >> Additionally RFC3261 and RFC3263 define that transport failures >> (generally due to fatal ICMP errors in UDP and connection failures >> in TCP) should be treated as 503 response. [2]. >> >> So in all above cases, it is most likely that dialog does not >> establishes at all and 503 response is treated similar to stateless >> response. Therefore, a to-tag can be added/replaced before sending >> it to UAC. >> >> Theoretically, kamailio should check and use to-tag from 503 >> response when converting it to 500 response and only create new >> to-tag if it is absent. >> >> References: >> >> [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3261#section-21.5.4 >> >> [2] >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hilt-sip-correction-503-01#section-4 >> >> >> Hope this helps. >> >> >> >> On Wed, 22 Jul 2020 at 21:08, Henning Westerholt <hw(a)skalatan.de >> <mailto:hw@skalatan.de>> wrote: >> >> Hello, >> >> >> >> Apparently, this is the way the code works: >> >> >> >> t_reply.c: >> >> if (relayed_code==503 && tm_remap_503_500){ >> >> /* replace a final 503 with a 500: >> >> * generate a "FAKE" reply and a >> new to_tag (for easier >> >> * debugging)*/ >> >> >> >> Lets see if maybe others can comment as well. Otherwise you >> could just open an issue on our tracker, it is probably not that >> hard to change this. >> >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> >> >> Henning >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Henning Westerholt – https://skalatan.de/blog/ >> >> Kamailio services – https://gilawa.com <https://gilawa.com/> >> >> >> >> *From:* sr-users <sr-users-bounces(a)lists.kamailio.org >> <mailto:sr-users-bounces@lists.kamailio.org>> *On Behalf Of >> *Gerry | Rigatta >> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 22, 2020 8:58 PM >> *To:* Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List >> <sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org <mailto:sr-users@lists.kamailio.org>> >> *Subject:* [SR-Users] bug ? remap_503_500 breaks dialogs >> >> >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> I am using Kamailio 5.2. >> >> >> >> Apparently the remapping of 503 to 500 codes in the tm module >> does also change the to-tag. This behaviour breaks dialogs with >> yate and therefore calls hang and the 503 remains >> unacknowledged. After disabling the 503 to 500 remapping with >> modparam("tm", "remap_503_500", 0) all works fine again. >> >> >> >> Changing the to-tag in a dialog seems to contradict RFC3261, or >> do I see this wrongly? >> >> >> 12<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3261#section-12>Dialogs >> >> >> A dialog is identified at each UA with a dialog ID, which >> consists of a Call-ID value, a local tag and a remote tag…" >> >> >> >> Thanks for looking into this. >> >> >> >> Gerry >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List >> sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org <mailto:sr-users@lists.kamailio.org> >> https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List >> sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org >> https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users > -- > Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- www.asipto.com > www.twitter.com/miconda -- www.linkedin.com/in/miconda > Funding: https://www.paypal.me/dcmierla > _______________________________________________ > Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List > sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org <mailto:sr-users@lists.kamailio.org> > https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users

-- Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- www.asipto.com www.twitter.com/miconda -- www.linkedin.com/in/miconda Funding: https://www.paypal.me/dcmierla

Gerry | Rigatta

2:41 p.m.

New subject: bug ? remap_503_500 breaks dialogs

Hi Daniel, thanks for looking into this. The initial INVITE does not have a to-tag but there is an intermediate session progress with a to-tag. See grep below. The RFC does not distinguish between established or provisional dialogs when it comes to the handling of the to-tags. If there is a to-tag it must not be changed by the Proxy. Clearly that must be so because the to-tag is used by the UAC to identify the call. Best Gerry IP addresses are changed in below dialog for security reasons U 7.7.23.109:5060 -> 11.22.17.24:5060 #5 INVITE sip:111100791456321475@13.23.9.94:5060 SIP/2.0..Max-Forwards: 19. .P-Asserted-Identity: tel:+4867777777..Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 7.7.23.109:5060 ;rport;branch=z9hG4bK1682611991..From: "004867777777" <sip:004867777777@7 8.47.203.109>;tag=540342132..To: <sip:111100791456321475@13.23.9.94:5060

...

..Call-ID: 1279305029@7.7.23.109..CSeq: 1 INVITE..User-Agent: nulltech.

...

On 23 Jul 2020, at 10:51, Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda(a)gmail.com> wrote: Did the initial INVITE received the 200ok, the call is connected and this is the case of a re-INVITE? In such case the dialog has to be terminated by a BYE. If the call is not established, so it is between initial INVITE and no 200ok was received, then the INVITE request did not contain the To-tag. And what is done by Kamailio is valid as per email responses so far. Maybe you can just send the ngrep output with all sip requests/replies for this case and we can see exactly which scenario you talk about. Cheers, Daniel On 23.07.20 09:41, Gerry | Rigatta wrote:

As far as I read this is not correct. Also a provisional dialog is a dialog according to RFC3261. Only in the case that the request did not contain a to-tag the provisional messages may insert their own to-tags: "1xx and 2xx responses may be involved in the establishment of dialogs. When a request does not contain a To tag, the To tag in the response is used by the UAC to distinguish multiple responses to a dialog creating request. A proxy MUST NOT insert a tag into the To header field of a 1xx or 2xx response if the request did not contain one. A proxy MUST NOT modify the tag in the To header field of a 1xx or 2xx response.” https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3261#page-111 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3261#page-111> In any case, this bug is not a about provisional messages. The 500 message terminates the dialog for the UAC (yate) and the UAC needs to be able to identify it. An UAC identifies the dialog by the call-id, local tag and remote tag.

> 12 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3261#section-12> Dialogs > > A dialog is identified at each UA with a dialog ID, which consists of a Call-ID value, a local tag and a remote tag…" >

> On 23 Jul 2020, at 10:07, Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda(a)gmail.com <mailto:miconda@gmail.com>> wrote: >

> This parameter is probably to have a shortcut of doing: > > failure_route[REMAP503] { > > if(t_check_status("503")) { > > t_reply("500", "Server error"); > exit; > > } > > Being like the server application is generating the 500 (so using own tag), instead of forwarding the 503. Not a bug, but if anyone is willing to add an option to allow re-using the to-tag from received reply, I am fine with it. > > Anyhow, even if this would be fixed, I am wondering how yate is going to work in parallel/serial forking scenarios where different to-tags flow for a while and the final failure response can have any to-tag, including a new one (e.g., from a device not sending any 1xx or again from kamailio (e.g., when last target doesn't reply at all)). > > Cheers, > Daniel > > On 23.07.20 06:08, M S wrote: >> The SIP code 503 is tricky in the sense that i can indicate either server maintenance or server overload. In both cases it can send Retry-After header and any subsequent requests from same source are ignored for the duration of Retry-After interval. [1]. >> >> Additionally RFC3261 and RFC3263 define that transport failures (generally due to fatal ICMP errors in UDP and connection failures in TCP) should be treated as 503 response. [2]. >> >> So in all above cases, it is most likely that dialog does not establishes at all and 503 response is treated similar to stateless response. Therefore, a to-tag can be added/replaced before sending it to UAC. >> >> Theoretically, kamailio should check and use to-tag from 503 response when converting it to 500 response and only create new to-tag if it is absent. >> >> References: >> >> [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3261#section-21.5.4 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3261#section-21.5.4> >> >> [2] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hilt-sip-correction-503-01#section-4 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hilt-sip-correction-503-01#section-4> >> >> Hope this helps. >> >> >> >> On Wed, 22 Jul 2020 at 21:08, Henning Westerholt <hw(a)skalatan.de <mailto:hw@skalatan.de>> wrote: >> Hello, >> >> >> Apparently, this is the way the code works: >> >> >> t_reply.c: >> >> if (relayed_code==503 && tm_remap_503_500){ >> >> /* replace a final 503 with a 500: >> >> * generate a "FAKE" reply and a new to_tag (for easier >> >> * debugging)*/ >> >> >> Lets see if maybe others can comment as well. Otherwise you could just open an issue on our tracker, it is probably not that hard to change this. >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> >> Henning >> >> >> -- >> >> Henning Westerholt – https://skalatan.de/blog/ <https://skalatan.de/blog/> >> Kamailio services – https://gilawa.com <https://gilawa.com/> >> >> From: sr-users <sr-users-bounces(a)lists.kamailio.org <mailto:sr-users-bounces@lists.kamailio.org>> On Behalf Of Gerry | Rigatta >> Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2020 8:58 PM >> To: Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List <sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org <mailto:sr-users@lists.kamailio.org>> >> Subject: [SR-Users] bug ? remap_503_500 breaks dialogs >> >> >> Hi, >> >> >> I am using Kamailio 5.2. >> >> >> Apparently the remapping of 503 to 500 codes in the tm module does also change the to-tag. This behaviour breaks dialogs with yate and therefore calls hang and the 503 remains unacknowledged. After disabling the 503 to 500 remapping with modparam("tm", "remap_503_500", 0) all works fine again. >> >> >> Changing the to-tag in a dialog seems to contradict RFC3261, or do I see this wrongly? >> >> <>12 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3261#section-12> Dialogs >> >> A dialog is identified at each UA with a dialog ID, which consists of a Call-ID value, a local tag and a remote tag…" >> >> >> Thanks for looking into this. >> >> >> Gerry >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List >> sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org <mailto:sr-users@lists.kamailio.org> >> https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users <https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List >> sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org <mailto:sr-users@lists.kamailio.org> >> https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users <https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users> > -- > Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- www.asipto.com <http://www.asipto.com/> > www.twitter.com/miconda <http://www.twitter.com/miconda> -- www.linkedin.com/in/miconda <http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda> > Funding: https://www.paypal.me/dcmierla <https://www.paypal.me/dcmierla>_______________________________________________ > Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List > sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org <mailto:sr-users@lists.kamailio.org> > https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users <https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users>

-- Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- www.asipto.com <http://www.asipto.com/> www.twitter.com/miconda <http://www.twitter.com/miconda> -- www.linkedin.com/in/miconda <http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda> Funding: https://www.paypal.me/dcmierla <https://www.paypal.me/dcmierla>

Henning Westerholt

2:53 p.m.

New subject: bug ? remap_503_500 breaks dialogs

Hello, just to add to the RFC quoted below: this is referring to 1xx or 2xx responses. But later on, in the section, the RFC seems to be quite clear: If the only response that was received is a 503, the proxy SHOULD generate a 500 response and forward that upstream. A proxy MUST NOT modify the To tag in any forwarded response to a request that contains a To tag. Cheers, Henning From: sr-users <sr-users-bounces(a)lists.kamailio.org> On Behalf Of Gerry | Rigatta Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2020 2:41 PM To: miconda(a)gmail.com Cc: Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List <sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org> Subject: Re: [SR-Users] bug ? remap_503_500 breaks dialogs Hi Daniel, thanks for looking into this. The initial INVITE does not have a to-tag but there is an intermediate session progress with a to-tag. See grep below. The RFC does not distinguish between established or provisional dialogs when it comes to the handling of the to-tags. If there is a to-tag it must not be changed by the Proxy. Clearly that must be so because the to-tag is used by the UAC to identify the call. Best Gerry IP addresses are changed in below dialog for security reasons U 7.7.23.109:5060 -> 11.22.17.24:5060 #5 INVITE sip:111100791456321475@13.23.9.94:5060 SIP/2.0..Max-Forwards: 19. .P-Asserted-Identity: tel:+4867777777..Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 7.7.23.109:5060 ;rport;branch=z9hG4bK1682611991..From: "004867777777" <sip:004867777777@7 8.47.203.109>;tag=540342132..To: <sip:111100791456321475@13.23.9.94:5060

...

..Call-ID: 1279305029@7.7.23.109<mailto:1279305029@7.7.23.109>..CSeq: 1 INVITE..User-Agent: nulltech.

.Contact: <sip:004867777777@7.7.23.109:5060>..Allow: ACK, INVITE, BYE, CANCEL, REGISTER, REFER, OPTIONS, PRACK, INFO..Supported: 100rel..Content-T ype: application/sdp..Content-Length: 209....v=0..o=yate 1595505273 1595505 273 IN IP4 7.7.23.109..s=SIP Call..c=IN IP4 7.7.23.109..t=0 0..m=audi o 28610 RTP/AVP 8 0 101..a=rtpmap:8 PCMA/8000..a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000..a=rtpm ap:101 telephone-event/8000.. # U 11.22.17.24:5060 -> 7.7.23.109:5060 #6 SIP/2.0 100 trying -- your call is important to us..Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 78.47. 203.109:5060;rport=5061;branch=z9hG4bK1682611991;received=7.7.23.109..Fr om: "004867777777" <sip:004867777777@7.7.23.109>;tag=540342132..To: <s ip:111100791456321475@13.23.9.94<mailto:111100791456321475@13.23.9.94>:5060>..Call-ID: 1279305029@7.7.23.10<mailto:1279305029@7.7.23.10> 9..CSeq: 1 INVITE..Server: kamailio (5.2.3 (x86_64/linux))..Content-Length: 0.... # U 11.22.17.24:5060 -> 13.23.9.94:5060 #7 INVITE sip:111100791456321475@13.23.9.94:5060 SIP/2.0..Record-Route: <si p:11.22.17.24:5060;lr=on>..Max-Forwards: 18..P-Asserted-Identity: tel:+ 4867777777..Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 11.22.17.24:5060;branch=z9hG4bK58d4.f1e37 b7feb047b6707c5fb8a298d36fc.0..Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 7.7.23.109:5060;received =7.7.23.109;rport=5061;branch=z9hG4bK1682611991..From: "004867777777" < sip:004867777777@7.7.23.109>;tag=540342132..To: <sip:111100791456321475 @13.23.9.94:5060>..Call-ID: 1279305029@7.7.23.109<mailto:1279305029@7.7.23.109>..CSeq: 1 INVITE..Us er-Agent: nulltech..Contact: <sip:004867777777@7.7.23.109:5060>..Allow: ACK, INVITE, BYE, CANCEL, REGISTER, REFER, OPTIONS, PRACK, INFO..Supported : 100rel..Content-Type: application/sdp..Content-Length: 209....v=0..o=yate 1595505273 1595505273 IN IP4 7.7.23.109..s=SIP Call..c=IN IP4 7.7.23 .109..t=0 0..m=audio 28610 RTP/AVP 8 0 101..a=rtpmap:8 PCMA/8000..a=rtpmap: 0 PCMU/8000..a=rtpmap:101 telephone-event/8000.. # U 13.23.9.94:5060 -> 11.22.17.24:5060 #8 SIP/2.0 100 Trying..Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 11.22.17.24:5060;branch=z9hG4bK58d 4.f1e37b7feb047b6707c5fb8a298d36fc.0;received=11.22.17.24..Via: SIP/2.0 /UDP 7.7.23.109:5060;received=7.7.23.109;rport=5061;branch=z9hG4bK168 2611991..Record-Route: <sip:11.22.17.24:5060;lr=on>..From: "00371673360 58" <sip:004867777777@7.7.23.109>;tag=540342132..To: <sip:1111007914563 21475@13.23.9.94<mailto:21475@13.23.9.94>:5060>..Call-ID: 1279305029@7.7.23.109<mailto:1279305029@7.7.23.109>..CSeq: 1 INVIT E..User-Agent: Ravetel SIP proxy..Allow: INVITE, ACK, CANCEL, OPTIONS, BYE, REFER, SUBSCRIBE, NOTIFY, INFO..Supported: replaces..Contact: <sip:1111007 91456321475@13.23.9.94<mailto:91456321475@13.23.9.94>:5060>..Content-Length: 0.... # U 13.23.9.94:5060 -> 11.22.17.24:5060 #9 SIP/2.0 183 Session Progress..Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 11.22.17.24:5060;branch= z9hG4bK58d4.f1e37b7feb047b6707c5fb8a298d36fc.0;received=11.22.17.24..Vi a: SIP/2.0/UDP 7.7.23.109:5060;received=7.7.23.109;rport=5061;branch= z9hG4bK1682611991..Record-Route: <sip:11.22.17.24:5060;lr=on>..From: "0 04867777777" <sip:004867777777@7.7.23.109>;tag=540342132..To: <sip:103 000791456321475@13.23.9.94<mailto:000791456321475@13.23.9.94>:5060>;tag=as6d86b4e8..Call-ID: 1279305029@78. 47.203.109..CSeq: 1 INVITE..User-Agent: Ravetel SIP proxy..Allow: INVITE, A CK, CANCEL, OPTIONS, BYE, REFER, SUBSCRIBE, NOTIFY, INFO..Supported: replac es..Contact: <sip:111100791456321475@13.23.9.94:5060>..Content-Type: app lication/sdp..Content-Length: 235....v=0..o=root 714 714 IN IP4 136.243.29. 94..s=session..c=IN IP4 13.23.9.94..t=0 0..m=audio 10454 RTP/AVP 8 0 101 ..a=rtpmap:8 PCMA/8000..a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000..a=rtpmap:101 telephone-event/ 8000..a=fmtp:101 0-16..a=ptime:20..a=sendrecv.. # U 11.22.17.24:5060 -> 7.7.23.109:5060 #10 SIP/2.0 183 Session Progress..Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 7.7.23.109:5060;received= 7.7.23.109;rport=5061;branch=z9hG4bK1682611991..Record-Route: <sip:116.2 02.187.204:5060;lr=on>..From: "004867777777" <sip:004867777777@7.7.23. 109>;tag=540342132..To: <sip:111100791456321475@13.23.9.94:5060>;tag=as6 d86b4e8..Call-ID: 1279305029@7.7.23.109<mailto:1279305029@7.7.23.109>..CSeq: 1 INVITE..User-Agent: Ravet el SIP proxy..Allow: INVITE, ACK, CANCEL, OPTIONS, BYE, REFER, SUBSCRIBE, NOTIFY, INFO..Supported: replaces..Contact: <sip:111100791456321475@136.24 3.29.94:5060>..Content-Type: application/sdp..Content-Length: 235....v=0..o =root 714 714 IN IP4 13.23.9.94..s=session..c=IN IP4 13.23.9.94..t=0 0..m=audio 10454 RTP/AVP 8 0 101..a=rtpmap:8 PCMA/8000..a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/800 0..a=rtpmap:101 telephone-event/8000..a=fmtp:101 0-16..a=ptime:20..a=sendre cv.. # U 13.23.9.94:5060 -> 11.22.17.24:5060 #39 SIP/2.0 503 Service Unavailable..Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 11.22.17.24:5060;bran ch=z9hG4bK58d4.f1e37b7feb047b6707c5fb8a298d36fc.0;received=11.22.17.24. .Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 7.7.23.109:5060;received=7.7.23.109;rport=5061;bran ch=z9hG4bK1682611991..From: "004867777777" <sip:004867777777@7.7.23.10 9>;tag=540342132..To: <sip:111100791456321475@13.23.9.94:5060>;tag=as6d8 6b4e8..Call-ID: 1279305029@7.7.23.109<mailto:1279305029@7.7.23.109>..CSeq: 1 INVITE..User-Agent: Ravet el SIP proxy..Allow: INVITE, ACK, CANCEL, OPTIONS, BYE, REFER, SUBSCRIBE, N OTIFY, INFO..Supported: replaces..X-Asterisk-HangupCause: Call Rejected..X- Asterisk-HangupCauseCode: 21..Content-Length: 0.... # U 11.22.17.24:5060 -> 13.23.9.94:5060 #40 ACK sip:111100791456321475@13.23.9.94:5060 SIP/2.0..Max-Forwards: 18..Vi a: SIP/2.0/UDP 11.22.17.24:5060;branch=z9hG4bK58d4.f1e37b7feb047b6707c5 fb8a298d36fc.0..From: "004867777777" <sip:004867777777@7.7.23.109>;tag =540342132..To: <sip:111100791456321475@13.23.9.94:5060>;tag=as6d86b4e8. .Call-ID: 1279305029@7.7.23.109<mailto:1279305029@7.7.23.109>..CSeq: 1 ACK..Content-Length: 0.... # U 11.22.17.24:5060 -> 7.7.23.109:5060 #41 SIP/2.0 500 Service Unavailable..Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 7.7.23.109:5060;rport= 5061;branch=z9hG4bK1682611991;received=7.7.23.109..From: "004867777777" <sip:004867777777@7.7.23.109>;tag=540342132..To: <sip:1111007914563214 75@13.23.9.94<mailto:75@13.23.9.94>:5060>;tag=95329101123423eab1637e9ad490b3a6-9d3c..Call-ID: 1279305029@7.7.23.109<mailto:1279305029@7.7.23.109>..CSeq: 1 INVITE..Server: kamailio (5.2.3 (x86_64/l inux))..Content-Length: 0.... # U 11.22.17.24:5060 -> 7.7.23.109:5060 #42 SIP/2.0 500 Service Unavailable..Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 7.7.23.109:5060;rport= 5061;branch=z9hG4bK1682611991;received=7.7.23.109..From: "004867777777" <sip:004867777777@7.7.23.109>;tag=540342132..To: <sip:1111007914563214 75@13.23.9.94<mailto:75@13.23.9.94>:5060>;tag=95329101123423eab1637e9ad490b3a6-9d3c..Call-ID: 1279305029@7.7.23.109<mailto:1279305029@7.7.23.109>..CSeq: 1 INVITE..Server: kamailio (5.2.3 (x86_64/l inux))..Content-Length: 0.... # On 23 Jul 2020, at 10:51, Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda@gmail.com<mailto:miconda@gmail.com>> wrote: Did the initial INVITE received the 200ok, the call is connected and this is the case of a re-INVITE? In such case the dialog has to be terminated by a BYE. If the call is not established, so it is between initial INVITE and no 200ok was received, then the INVITE request did not contain the To-tag. And what is done by Kamailio is valid as per email responses so far. Maybe you can just send the ngrep output with all sip requests/replies for this case and we can see exactly which scenario you talk about. Cheers, Daniel On 23.07.20 09:41, Gerry | Rigatta wrote: Indeed, at this stage there is no dialog established and there can be many To-tags in 1xx provisional responses (eg, a parallel forking scenario) -- the to-tag of the dialog has to be taken from 200ok. As far as I read this is not correct. Also a provisional dialog is a dialog according to RFC3261. Only in the case that the request did not contain a to-tag the provisional messages may insert their own to-tags: "1xx and 2xx responses may be involved in the establishment of dialogs. When a request does not contain a To tag, the To tag in the response is used by the UAC to distinguish multiple responses to a dialog creating request. A proxy MUST NOT insert a tag into the To header field of a 1xx or 2xx response if the request did not contain one. A proxy MUST NOT modify the tag in the To header field of a 1xx or 2xx response.” https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3261#page-111 In any case, this bug is not a about provisional messages. The 500 message terminates the dialog for the UAC (yate) and the UAC needs to be able to identify it. An UAC identifies the dialog by the call-id, local tag and remote tag. 12<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3261#section-12> Dialogs A dialog is identified at each UA with a dialog ID, which consists of a Call-ID value, a local tag and a remote tag…" On 23 Jul 2020, at 10:07, Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda@gmail.com<mailto:miconda@gmail.com>> wrote: Indeed, at this stage there is no dialog established and there can be many To-tags in 1xx provisional responses (eg, a parallel forking scenario) -- the to-tag of the dialog has to be taken from 200ok. This parameter is probably to have a shortcut of doing: failure_route[REMAP503] { if(t_check_status("503")) { t_reply("500", "Server error"); exit; } Being like the server application is generating the 500 (so using own tag), instead of forwarding the 503. Not a bug, but if anyone is willing to add an option to allow re-using the to-tag from received reply, I am fine with it. Anyhow, even if this would be fixed, I am wondering how yate is going to work in parallel/serial forking scenarios where different to-tags flow for a while and the final failure response can have any to-tag, including a new one (e.g., from a device not sending any 1xx or again from kamailio (e.g., when last target doesn't reply at all)). Cheers, Daniel On 23.07.20 06:08, M S wrote: The SIP code 503 is tricky in the sense that i can indicate either server maintenance or server overload. In both cases it can send Retry-After header and any subsequent requests from same source are ignored for the duration of Retry-After interval. [1]. Additionally RFC3261 and RFC3263 define that transport failures (generally due to fatal ICMP errors in UDP and connection failures in TCP) should be treated as 503 response. [2]. So in all above cases, it is most likely that dialog does not establishes at all and 503 response is treated similar to stateless response. Therefore, a to-tag can be added/replaced before sending it to UAC. Theoretically, kamailio should check and use to-tag from 503 response when converting it to 500 response and only create new to-tag if it is absent. References: [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3261#section-21.5.4 [2] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hilt-sip-correction-503-01#section-4 Hope this helps. On Wed, 22 Jul 2020 at 21:08, Henning Westerholt <hw@skalatan.de<mailto:hw@skalatan.de>> wrote: Hello, Apparently, this is the way the code works: t_reply.c: if (relayed_code==503 && tm_remap_503_500){ /* replace a final 503 with a 500: * generate a "FAKE" reply and a new to_tag (for easier * debugging)*/ Lets see if maybe others can comment as well. Otherwise you could just open an issue on our tracker, it is probably not that hard to change this. Cheers, Henning -- Henning Westerholt – https://skalatan.de/blog/ Kamailio services – https://gilawa.com<https://gilawa.com/> From: sr-users <sr-users-bounces@lists.kamailio.org<mailto:sr-users-bounces@lists.kamailio.org>> On Behalf Of Gerry | Rigatta Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2020 8:58 PM To: Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List <sr-users@lists.kamailio.org<mailto:sr-users@lists.kamailio.org>> Subject: [SR-Users] bug ? remap_503_500 breaks dialogs Hi, I am using Kamailio 5.2. Apparently the remapping of 503 to 500 codes in the tm module does also change the to-tag. This behaviour breaks dialogs with yate and therefore calls hang and the 503 remains unacknowledged. After disabling the 503 to 500 remapping with modparam("tm", "remap_503_500", 0) all works fine again. Changing the to-tag in a dialog seems to contradict RFC3261, or do I see this wrongly? 12<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3261#section-12> Dialogs A dialog is identified at each UA with a dialog ID, which consists of a Call-ID value, a local tag and a remote tag…" Thanks for looking into this. Gerry _______________________________________________ Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List sr-users@lists.kamailio.org<mailto:sr-users@lists.kamailio.org> https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users _______________________________________________ Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List sr-users@lists.kamailio.org<mailto:sr-users@lists.kamailio.org> https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users -- Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- www.asipto.com<http://www.asipto.com/> www.twitter.com/miconda<http://www.twitter.com/miconda> -- www.linkedin.com/in/miconda<http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda> Funding: https://www.paypal.me/dcmierla _______________________________________________ Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List sr-users@lists.kamailio.org<mailto:sr-users@lists.kamailio.org> https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users -- Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- www.asipto.com<http://www.asipto.com/> www.twitter.com/miconda<http://www.twitter.com/miconda> -- www.linkedin.com/in/miconda<http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda> Funding: https://www.paypal.me/dcmierla

Daniel-Constantin Mierla

4:14 p.m.

New subject: bug ? remap_503_500 breaks dialogs

Hello, I am not sure what variant you want to advocate with this message/excerpt from RFC, but it is about "forwarded response to a **request that contains a To tag**", and the request (the initial INVITE) has no To tag. For replies corresponding to requests within dialog, the to-tag has to be preserved and I think kamailio does it even if it has to generate a reply (e.g., timeout on re-INVITE routing). Cheers, Daniel On 23.07.20 14:53, Henning Westerholt wrote:

...

Hello, just to add to the RFC quoted below: this is referring to 1xx or 2xx responses. But later on, in the section, the RFC seems to be quite clear: If the only response that was received is a 503, the proxy SHOULD generate a 500 response and forward that upstream. A proxy MUST NOT modify the To tag in any forwarded response to a request that contains a To tag. Cheers, Henning *From:*sr-users <sr-users-bounces(a)lists.kamailio.org> *On Behalf Of *Gerry | Rigatta *Sent:* Thursday, July 23, 2020 2:41 PM *To:* miconda(a)gmail.com *Cc:* Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List <sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org> *Subject:* Re: [SR-Users] bug ? remap_503_500 breaks dialogs Hi Daniel, thanks for looking into this. The initial INVITE does not have a to-tag but there is an intermediate session progress with a to-tag. See grep below. The RFC does not distinguish between established or provisional dialogs when it comes to the handling of the to-tags. If there is a to-tag it must not be changed by the Proxy. Clearly that must be so because the to-tag is used by the UAC to identify the call. Best Gerry IP addresses are changed in below dialog for security reasons U 7.7.23.109:5060 -> 11.22.17.24:5060 #5 INVITE sip:111100791456321475@13.23.9.94:5060 <sip:111100791456321475@13.23.9.94:5060> SIP/2.0..Max-Forwards: 19. .P-Asserted-Identity: tel:+4867777777..Via: <tel:+4867777777..Via:> SIP/2.0/UDP 7.7.23.109:5060 ;rport;branch=z9hG4bK1682611991..From: "004867777777" <sip:004867777777@7 8.47.203.109>;tag=540342132..To: <sip:111100791456321475@13.23.9.94:5060

..Call-ID: 1279305029(a)7.7.23.109

<mailto:1279305029@7.7.23.109>..CSeq: 1 INVITE..User-Agent: nulltech. .Contact: <sip:004867777777@7.7.23.109:5060>..Allow: ACK, INVITE, BYE, CANCEL, REGISTER, REFER, OPTIONS, PRACK, INFO..Supported: 100rel..Content-T ype: application/sdp..Content-Length: 209....v=0..o=yate 1595505273 1595505 273 IN IP4 7.7.23.109..s=SIP Call..c=IN IP4 7.7.23.109..t=0 0..m=audi o 28610 RTP/AVP 8 0 101..a=rtpmap:8 PCMA/8000..a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000..a=rtpm ap:101 telephone-event/8000.. # U 11.22.17.24:5060 -> 7.7.23.109:5060 #6 SIP/2.0 100 trying -- your call is important to us..Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 78.47. 203.109:5060;rport=5061;branch=z9hG4bK1682611991;received=7.7.23.109..Fr om: "004867777777" <sip:004867777777@7.7.23.109>;tag=540342132..To: <s ip:111100791456321475@13.23.9.94 <mailto:111100791456321475@13.23.9.94>:5060>..Call-ID: 1279305029(a)7.7.23.10 <mailto:1279305029@7.7.23.10> 9..CSeq: 1 INVITE..Server: kamailio (5.2.3 (x86_64/linux))..Content-Length: 0.... # U 11.22.17.24:5060 -> 13.23.9.94:5060 #7 INVITE sip:111100791456321475@13.23.9.94:5060 <sip:111100791456321475@13.23.9.94:5060> SIP/2.0..Record-Route: <si p:11.22.17.24:5060;lr=on>..Max-Forwards: 18..P-Asserted-Identity: tel:+ 4867777777..Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 11.22.17.24:5060;branch=z9hG4bK58d4.f1e37 b7feb047b6707c5fb8a298d36fc.0..Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 7.7.23.109:5060;received =7.7.23.109;rport=5061;branch=z9hG4bK1682611991..From: "004867777777" < sip:004867777777@7.7.23.109 <sip:004867777777@7.7.23.109>>;tag=540342132..To: <sip:111100791456321475 @13.23.9.94:5060>..Call-ID: 1279305029(a)7.7.23.109 <mailto:1279305029@7.7.23.109>..CSeq: 1 INVITE..Us er-Agent: nulltech..Contact: <sip:004867777777@7.7.23.109:5060>..Allow: ACK, INVITE, BYE, CANCEL, REGISTER, REFER, OPTIONS, PRACK, INFO..Supported : 100rel..Content-Type: application/sdp..Content-Length: 209....v=0..o=yate 1595505273 1595505273 IN IP4 7.7.23.109..s=SIP Call..c=IN IP4 7.7.23 .109..t=0 0..m=audio 28610 RTP/AVP 8 0 101..a=rtpmap:8 PCMA/8000..a=rtpmap: 0 PCMU/8000..a=rtpmap:101 telephone-event/8000.. # U 13.23.9.94:5060 -> 11.22.17.24:5060 #8 SIP/2.0 100 Trying..Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 11.22.17.24:5060;branch=z9hG4bK58d 4.f1e37b7feb047b6707c5fb8a298d36fc.0;received=11.22.17.24..Via: SIP/2.0 /UDP 7.7.23.109:5060;received=7.7.23.109;rport=5061;branch=z9hG4bK168 2611991..Record-Route: <sip:11.22.17.24:5060;lr=on>..From: "00371673360 58" <sip:004867777777@7.7.23.109>;tag=540342132..To: <sip:1111007914563 21475(a)13.23.9.94 <mailto:21475@13.23.9.94>:5060>..Call-ID: 1279305029(a)7.7.23.109 <mailto:1279305029@7.7.23.109>..CSeq: 1 INVIT E..User-Agent: Ravetel SIP proxy..Allow: INVITE, ACK, CANCEL, OPTIONS, BYE, REFER, SUBSCRIBE, NOTIFY, INFO..Supported: replaces..Contact: <sip:1111007 91456321475(a)13.23.9.94 <mailto:91456321475@13.23.9.94>:5060>..Content-Length: 0.... # U 13.23.9.94:5060 -> 11.22.17.24:5060 #9 SIP/2.0 183 Session Progress..Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 11.22.17.24:5060;branch= z9hG4bK58d4.f1e37b7feb047b6707c5fb8a298d36fc.0;received=11.22.17.24..Vi a: SIP/2.0/UDP 7.7.23.109:5060;received=7.7.23.109;rport=5061;branch= z9hG4bK1682611991..Record-Route: <sip:11.22.17.24:5060;lr=on>..From: "0 04867777777" <sip:004867777777@7.7.23.109>;tag=540342132..To: <sip:103 000791456321475(a)13.23.9.94 <mailto:000791456321475@13.23.9.94>:5060>;tag=as6d86b4e8..Call-ID: 1279305029@78. 47.203.109..CSeq: 1 INVITE..User-Agent: Ravetel SIP proxy..Allow: INVITE, A CK, CANCEL, OPTIONS, BYE, REFER, SUBSCRIBE, NOTIFY, INFO..Supported: replac es..Contact: <sip:111100791456321475@13.23.9.94:5060>..Content-Type: app lication/sdp..Content-Length: 235....v=0..o=root 714 714 IN IP4 136.243.29. 94..s=session..c=IN IP4 13.23.9.94..t=0 0..m=audio 10454 RTP/AVP 8 0 101 ..a=rtpmap:8 PCMA/8000..a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000..a=rtpmap:101 telephone-event/ 8000..a=fmtp:101 0-16..a=ptime:20..a=sendrecv.. # U 11.22.17.24:5060 -> 7.7.23.109:5060 #10 SIP/2.0 183 Session Progress..Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 7.7.23.109:5060;received= 7.7.23.109;rport=5061;branch=z9hG4bK1682611991..Record-Route: <sip:116.2 02.187.204:5060;lr=on>..From: "004867777777" <sip:004867777777@7.7.23. 109>;tag=540342132..To: <sip:111100791456321475@13.23.9.94:5060>;tag=as6 d86b4e8..Call-ID: 1279305029(a)7.7.23.109 <mailto:1279305029@7.7.23.109>..CSeq: 1 INVITE..User-Agent: Ravet el SIP proxy..Allow: INVITE, ACK, CANCEL, OPTIONS, BYE, REFER, SUBSCRIBE, NOTIFY, INFO..Supported: replaces..Contact: <sip:111100791456321475@136.24 3.29.94:5060>..Content-Type: application/sdp..Content-Length: 235....v=0..o =root 714 714 IN IP4 13.23.9.94..s=session..c=IN IP4 13.23.9.94..t=0 0..m=audio 10454 RTP/AVP 8 0 101..a=rtpmap:8 PCMA/8000..a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/800 0..a=rtpmap:101 telephone-event/8000..a=fmtp:101 0-16..a=ptime:20..a=sendre cv.. # U 13.23.9.94:5060 -> 11.22.17.24:5060 #39 SIP/2.0 503 Service Unavailable..Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 11.22.17.24:5060;bran ch=z9hG4bK58d4.f1e37b7feb047b6707c5fb8a298d36fc.0;received=11.22.17.24. .Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 7.7.23.109:5060;received=7.7.23.109;rport=5061;bran ch=z9hG4bK1682611991..From: "004867777777" <sip:004867777777@7.7.23.10 9>;tag=540342132..To: <sip:111100791456321475@13.23.9.94:5060>;tag=as6d8 6b4e8..Call-ID: 1279305029(a)7.7.23.109 <mailto:1279305029@7.7.23.109>..CSeq: 1 INVITE..User-Agent: Ravet el SIP proxy..Allow: INVITE, ACK, CANCEL, OPTIONS, BYE, REFER, SUBSCRIBE, N OTIFY, INFO..Supported: replaces..X-Asterisk-HangupCause: Call Rejected..X- Asterisk-HangupCauseCode: 21..Content-Length: 0.... # U 11.22.17.24:5060 -> 13.23.9.94:5060 #40 ACK sip:111100791456321475@13.23.9.94:5060 <sip:111100791456321475@13.23.9.94:5060> SIP/2.0..Max-Forwards: 18..Vi a: SIP/2.0/UDP 11.22.17.24:5060;branch=z9hG4bK58d4.f1e37b7feb047b6707c5 fb8a298d36fc.0..From: "004867777777" <sip:004867777777@7.7.23.109>;tag =540342132..To: <sip:111100791456321475@13.23.9.94:5060>;tag=as6d86b4e8. .Call-ID: 1279305029(a)7.7.23.109 <mailto:1279305029@7.7.23.109>..CSeq: 1 ACK..Content-Length: 0.... # U 11.22.17.24:5060 -> 7.7.23.109:5060 #41 SIP/2.0 500 Service Unavailable..Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 7.7.23.109:5060;rport= 5061;branch=z9hG4bK1682611991;received=7.7.23.109..From: "004867777777" <sip:004867777777@7.7.23.109>;tag=540342132..To: <sip:1111007914563214 75(a)13.23.9.94 <mailto:75@13.23.9.94>:5060>;tag=95329101123423eab1637e9ad490b3a6-9d3c..Call-ID: 1279305029(a)7.7.23.109 <mailto:1279305029@7.7.23.109>..CSeq: 1 INVITE..Server: kamailio (5.2.3 (x86_64/l inux))..Content-Length: 0.... # U 11.22.17.24:5060 -> 7.7.23.109:5060 #42 SIP/2.0 500 Service Unavailable..Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 7.7.23.109:5060;rport= 5061;branch=z9hG4bK1682611991;received=7.7.23.109..From: "004867777777" <sip:004867777777@7.7.23.109>;tag=540342132..To: <sip:1111007914563214 75(a)13.23.9.94 <mailto:75@13.23.9.94>:5060>;tag=95329101123423eab1637e9ad490b3a6-9d3c..Call-ID: 1279305029(a)7.7.23.109 <mailto:1279305029@7.7.23.109>..CSeq: 1 INVITE..Server: kamailio (5.2.3 (x86_64/l inux))..Content-Length: 0.... # On 23 Jul 2020, at 10:51, Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda(a)gmail.com <mailto:miconda@gmail.com>> wrote: Did the initial INVITE received the 200ok, the call is connected and this is the case of a re-INVITE? In such case the dialog has to be terminated by a BYE. If the call is not established, so it is between initial INVITE and no 200ok was received, then the INVITE request did not contain the To-tag. And what is done by Kamailio is valid as per email responses so far. Maybe you can just send the ngrep output with all sip requests/replies for this case and we can see exactly which scenario you talk about. Cheers, Daniel On 23.07.20 09:41, Gerry | Rigatta wrote: Indeed, at this stage there is no dialog established and there can be many To-tags in 1xx provisional responses (eg, a parallel forking scenario) -- the to-tag of the dialog has to be taken from 200ok. As far as I read this is not correct. Also a provisional dialog is a dialog according to RFC3261. Only in the case that the request did not contain a to-tag the provisional messages may insert their own to-tags: "1xx and 2xx responses may be involved in the establishment of dialogs. When a request does not contain a To tag, the To tag in the response is used by the UAC to distinguish multiple responses to a dialog creating request. A proxy MUST NOT insert a tag into the To header field of a 1xx or 2xx response if the request did not contain one. A proxy MUST NOT modify the tag in the To header field of a 1xx or 2xx response.” https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3261#page-111 In any case, this bug is not a about provisional messages. The 500 message terminates the dialog for the UAC (yate) and the UAC needs to be able to identify it. An UAC identifies the dialog by the call-id, local tag and remote tag. 12 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3261#section-12> Dialogs A dialog is identified at each UA with a dialog ID, which consists of a Call-ID value, a local tag and a remote tag…" On 23 Jul 2020, at 10:07, Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda(a)gmail.com <mailto:miconda@gmail.com>> wrote: Indeed, at this stage there is no dialog established and there can be many To-tags in 1xx provisional responses (eg, a parallel forking scenario) -- the to-tag of the dialog has to be taken from 200ok. This parameter is probably to have a shortcut of doing: failure_route[REMAP503] { if(t_check_status("503")) { t_reply("500", "Server error"); exit; } Being like the server application is generating the 500 (so using own tag), instead of forwarding the 503. Not a bug, but if anyone is willing to add an option to allow re-using the to-tag from received reply, I am fine with it. Anyhow, even if this would be fixed, I am wondering how yate is going to work in parallel/serial forking scenarios where different to-tags flow for a while and the final failure response can have any to-tag, including a new one (e.g., from a device not sending any 1xx or again from kamailio (e.g., when last target doesn't reply at all)). Cheers, Daniel On 23.07.20 06:08, M S wrote: The SIP code 503 is tricky in the sense that i can indicate either server maintenance or server overload. In both cases it can send Retry-After header and any subsequent requests from same source are ignored for the duration of Retry-After interval. [1]. Additionally RFC3261 and RFC3263 define that transport failures (generally due to fatal ICMP errors in UDP and connection failures in TCP) should be treated as 503 response. [2]. So in all above cases, it is most likely that dialog does not establishes at all and 503 response is treated similar to stateless response. Therefore, a to-tag can be added/replaced before sending it to UAC. Theoretically, kamailio should check and use to-tag from 503 response when converting it to 500 response and only create new to-tag if it is absent. References: [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3261#section-21.5.4 [2] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hilt-sip-correction-503-01#section-4 Hope this helps. On Wed, 22 Jul 2020 at 21:08, Henning Westerholt <hw(a)skalatan.de <mailto:hw@skalatan.de>> wrote: Hello, Apparently, this is the way the code works: t_reply.c: if (relayed_code==503 && tm_remap_503_500){ /* replace a final 503 with a 500: * generate a "FAKE" reply and a new to_tag (for easier * debugging)*/ Lets see if maybe others can comment as well. Otherwise you could just open an issue on our tracker, it is probably not that hard to change this. Cheers, Henning -- Henning Westerholt – https://skalatan.de/blog/ Kamailio services – https://gilawa.com <https://gilawa.com/> *From:* sr-users <sr-users-bounces(a)lists.kamailio.org <mailto:sr-users-bounces@lists.kamailio.org>> *On Behalf Of *Gerry | Rigatta *Sent:* Wednesday, July 22, 2020 8:58 PM *To:* Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List <sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org <mailto:sr-users@lists.kamailio.org>> *Subject:* [SR-Users] bug ? remap_503_500 breaks dialogs Hi, I am using Kamailio 5.2. Apparently the remapping of 503 to 500 codes in the tm module does also change the to-tag. This behaviour breaks dialogs with yate and therefore calls hang and the 503 remains unacknowledged. After disabling the 503 to 500 remapping with modparam("tm", "remap_503_500", 0) all works fine again. Changing the to-tag in a dialog seems to contradict RFC3261, or do I see this wrongly? 12 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3261#section-12>Dialogs A dialog is identified at each UA with a dialog ID, which consists of a Call-ID value, a local tag and a remote tag…" Thanks for looking into this. Gerry _______________________________________________ Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org <mailto:sr-users@lists.kamailio.org> https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users _______________________________________________ Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org <mailto:sr-users@lists.kamailio.org> https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users -- Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- www.asipto.com <http://www.asipto.com/> www.twitter.com/miconda <http://www.twitter.com/miconda> -- www.linkedin.com/in/miconda <http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda> Funding: https://www.paypal.me/dcmierla _______________________________________________ Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org <mailto:sr-users@lists.kamailio.org> https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users -- Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- www.asipto.com <http://www.asipto.com/> www.twitter.com/miconda <http://www.twitter.com/miconda> -- www.linkedin.com/in/miconda <http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda> Funding: https://www.paypal.me/dcmierla

-- Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- www.asipto.com www.twitter.com/miconda -- www.linkedin.com/in/miconda Funding: https://www.paypal.me/dcmierla

Daniel-Constantin Mierla

4:08 p.m.

New subject: bug ? remap_503_500 breaks dialogs

Hello, there is no call at that moment, it is a routing-in-progress for the initial INVITE. The proxy can cancel the outgoing branch that returned the 183, send to another target address (e.g., call hunting scenario) which comes back with another 183 and different to-tag, or if the second target does not send any reply, then proxy generates itself a 408 reply -- just to give an example of a possible valid scenario. So, the To-tag is used to identify requests within an established dialog or to terminate a proxy-created branch in early phase. It is not used to match the reply for initial INVITE transaction -- for that purpose the branch parameter of first via should be used by calling UA. A call is terminated by a BYE and there to-tag matters indeed. But a transaction is not identified by using to-tag. Cheers, Daniel On 23.07.20 14:41, Gerry | Rigatta wrote:

...

..Call-ID: 1279305029(a)7.7.23.109

On 23 Jul 2020, at 10:51, Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda(a)gmail.com <mailto:miconda@gmail.com>> wrote: Did the initial INVITE received the 200ok, the call is connected and this is the case of a re-INVITE? In such case the dialog has to be terminated by a BYE. If the call is not established, so it is between initial INVITE and no 200ok was received, then the INVITE request did not contain the To-tag. And what is done by Kamailio is valid as per email responses so far. Maybe you can just send the ngrep output with all sip requests/replies for this case and we can see exactly which scenario you talk about. Cheers, Daniel On 23.07.20 09:41, Gerry | Rigatta wrote:

> > 12<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3261#section-12> Dialogs > > > A dialog is identified at each UA with a dialog ID, which > consists of a Call-ID value, a local tag and a remote tag…" >

> On 23 Jul 2020, at 10:07, Daniel-Constantin Mierla > <miconda(a)gmail.com <mailto:miconda@gmail.com>> wrote:

> This parameter is probably to have a shortcut of doing: > > failure_route[REMAP503] { > > if(t_check_status("503")) { > > t_reply("500", "Server error"); > exit; > > } > > Being like the server application is generating the 500 (so using > own tag), instead of forwarding the 503. Not a bug, but if anyone > is willing to add an option to allow re-using the to-tag from > received reply, I am fine with it. > > Anyhow, even if this would be fixed, I am wondering how yate is > going to work in parallel/serial forking scenarios where different > to-tags flow for a while and the final failure response can have > any to-tag, including a new one (e.g., from a device not sending > any 1xx or again from kamailio (e.g., when last target doesn't > reply at all)). > > Cheers, > Daniel > > On 23.07.20 06:08, M S wrote: >> The SIP code 503 is tricky in the sense that i can indicate either >> server maintenance or server overload. In both cases it can send >> Retry-After header and any subsequent requests from same source >> are ignored for the duration of Retry-After interval. [1]. >> >> Additionally RFC3261 and RFC3263 define that transport failures >> (generally due to fatal ICMP errors in UDP and connection failures >> in TCP) should be treated as 503 response. [2]. >> >> So in all above cases, it is most likely that dialog does not >> establishes at all and 503 response is treated similar to >> stateless response. Therefore, a to-tag can be added/replaced >> before sending it to UAC. >> >> Theoretically, kamailio should check and use to-tag from 503 >> response when converting it to 500 response and only create new >> to-tag if it is absent. >> >> References: >> >> [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3261#section-21.5.4 >> >> [2] >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hilt-sip-correction-503-01#section-4 >> >> >> Hope this helps. >> >> >> >> On Wed, 22 Jul 2020 at 21:08, Henning Westerholt <hw(a)skalatan.de >> <mailto:hw@skalatan.de>> wrote: >> >> Hello, >> >> >> >> Apparently, this is the way the code works: >> >> >> >> t_reply.c: >> >> if (relayed_code==503 && >> tm_remap_503_500){ >> >> /* replace a final 503 with a 500: >> >> * generate a "FAKE" reply and >> a new to_tag (for easier >> >> * debugging)*/ >> >> >> >> Lets see if maybe others can comment as well. Otherwise you >> could just open an issue on our tracker, it is probably not >> that hard to change this. >> >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> >> >> Henning >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Henning Westerholt – https://skalatan.de/blog/ >> >> Kamailio services – https://gilawa.com <https://gilawa.com/> >> >> >> >> *From:* sr-users <sr-users-bounces(a)lists.kamailio.org >> <mailto:sr-users-bounces@lists.kamailio.org>> *On Behalf Of >> *Gerry | Rigatta >> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 22, 2020 8:58 PM >> *To:* Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List >> <sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org <mailto:sr-users@lists.kamailio.org>> >> *Subject:* [SR-Users] bug ? remap_503_500 breaks dialogs >> >> >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> I am using Kamailio 5.2. >> >> >> >> Apparently the remapping of 503 to 500 codes in the tm module >> does also change the to-tag. This behaviour breaks dialogs >> with yate and therefore calls hang and the 503 remains >> unacknowledged. After disabling the 503 to 500 remapping with >> modparam("tm", "remap_503_500", 0) all works fine again. >> >> >> >> Changing the to-tag in a dialog seems to contradict RFC3261, >> or do I see this wrongly? >> >> >> 12<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3261#section-12>Dialogs >> >> >> A dialog is identified at each UA with a dialog ID, which >> consists of a Call-ID value, a local tag and a remote tag…" >> >> >> >> Thanks for looking into this. >> >> >> >> Gerry >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List >> sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org <mailto:sr-users@lists.kamailio.org> >> https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List >> sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org >> https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users > -- > Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- www.asipto.com > www.twitter.com/miconda -- www.linkedin.com/in/miconda > Funding: https://www.paypal.me/dcmierla > _______________________________________________ > Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List > sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org <mailto:sr-users@lists.kamailio.org> > https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users

-- Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- www.asipto.com www.twitter.com/miconda -- www.linkedin.com/in/miconda Funding: https://www.paypal.me/dcmierla

1379

days inactive

1393

days old

sr-users@lists.kamailio.org

Manage subscription

15 comments

5 participants

tags (0)

participants (5)

Daniel-Constantin Mierla
Gerry | Rigatta
Henning Westerholt
Juha Heinanen
M S