New subject: [Serusers] Why Was This INVITE Not Loose_Route()ed ??

15 Mar 2005

Hi,

In a different scenario from yours, i encountered the same problem of
loose_route() unexpectedly returning false.

In my case, it was when i was running a softphone on the same computer
as the ser proxy. If someone would send 
a routed message to the phone, for example a BYE, or a re-INVITE, SER
would return false at the loose_route() function. This means that ser
identifies the previous hop as doing strict routing. 

I was able to solve this by removing the ser-proxy IP address from the
alias="...." list in ser.cfg, and then using the domain module to gain
back the same functionality (or close) when doing the uri==myself. 

Don't know how your ser.cfg looks like, but just thought that maybe
this might be useful.

Regards,

Cesc

...
 >> Klaus Darilion
&lt;klaus.mailinglists(a)pernau.at&gt; 03/15/05 11:04AM >>> Hi Paul!

That something I also asked several times and no answer yet. In my 
experience, loose_route() is true if the request URI contains the "lr"

paramter (message comes from a strict router). Nevertheless, the 
loose_route function will remove its own Route: header.

I solve the troubles by allowing t_relay for all messages with to-tag 
(in-dialog).

regards,
klaus

Java Rockx wrote:
Unclassified
...
  Hi All.

 I just don't see why loose_route() returned FALSE for this INVITE
 message. Can anyone help?

 This INVITE was sent from my SIP phone to my SER-0.9 proxy. The IPs
 look funny because our SER proxy sits behind a Cisco 3600 and the ALG
...
  stuff has rewritten the IPs (ie, the 10.3.0.221
address).

 Regards,
 Paul

 U 2005/03/14 16:01:19.932196 69.200.205.122:5060 -> 10.3.0.221:5060
 INVITE sip:9195531888@66.243.109.99:5060;user=phone SIP/2.0.
 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 69.200.205.122:5060;branch=z9hG4bK2434592534.
 Route: <sip:10.3.0.221;ftag=10000000-0-1811969809;lr>.
 Route: <sip:216.229.127.60:5060;lr>.
 From: 3475626630
<sip:3475626630@66.243.109.99:5060;user=phone>;tag=550070175.
...
  To:
<sip:9195531888@64.152.60.6;user=phone>;tag=10000000-0-1811969809.
...
  Call-ID: 348926-3319820023-453493(a)66.243.109.99.
 CSeq: 1 INVITE.
 Contact: <sip:3475626630@69.200.205.122:5060>.
 max-forwards: 70.
 Allow: INVITE, ACK, OPTIONS, CANCEL, BYE.
 Content-Type: application/sdp.
 Content-Length:   171.
 .
 v=0.
 o=- 9528 3044 IN IP4 0.0.0.0.
 s=-.
 c=IN IP4 0.0.0.0.
 t=0 0.
 m=audio 13456 RTP/AVP 18 101.
 a=rtpmap:101 telephone-event/8000.
 a=fmtp:101 0-15.
 a=sendonly.
 a=ptime:20.

 _______________________________________________
 Serusers mailing list
 serusers(a)lists.iptel.org 
 http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers 

_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org 
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers

Re: [Serusers] Why Was This INVITE Not Loose_Route()ed ??