2 Mar
2005
2 Mar
'05
7:16 p.m.
You are not the only service provider who makes this kind of changes. I
also encountered the same problem recently. But so far, this problem
only happened on one UA which has the same sip engine as this
engineer's. All other UAs in my hand can adapt this kinds of changes. So
I personally think that instead of complaining SIP proxy violation, I
would rather complain the interoperatibility of this sip engine.
regards/Linda
-----Original Message-----
From: serusers-bounces(a)iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org] On
Behalf Of Klaus Darilion
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 9:37 AM
To: Java Rockx
Cc: serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
Subject: Re: [Serusers] Claims of ser-0.9 RFC3261 Violation
I guess the engineer is right. Thus, I use fix_nated_register() instead
of fix_nated_contact which does not rewrite the contact header.
regards,
klaus
Java Rockx wrote:
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
It is the same. Their IAD successfully registers the
first time, but
loses its registration because re-REGISTER messages are claimed to be
in voliation of RFC3261.
Here is exactly what their engineers are telling me:
Paul,
Here is the my findings regarding the contact field in the
REGISTER message...
We suspect the registration fails because the Contact of 200OK does
not match the Contact of REGISTER:
expiration
From the capture, Our network toplogy is like:
TA: 192.168.0.180 <--------> Router 65.77.37.2 <----------> Softswitch
64.84.242.120
Packet 4 REGISTER:
Contact: <sip:3212514276@192.168.0.180;user=phone>;expires=200
Packet 6 200OK:
Contact: <sip:3212514276@65.77.37.2:36323;user=phone>;expires=200,
<sip:3212514276@65.77.37.2:36235;user=phone>;expires=3
In RFC3261, it says:
The 200 (OK) response from the registrar contains a list of Contact
fields enumerating all current bindings. The UA compares each
contact address to see if it created the contact address, using
comparison rules in Section 19.1.4. If so, it updates the time interval according to the expires parameter
or, if absent, the
Expires field value. The UA then issues a REGISTER request for each
of its bindings before the expiration interval has elapsed. It MAY
combine several updates into one REGISTER request.
So obviously the contact addresses in 200OK don't match the one in
REGISTER.
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 11:28:51 -0500, Vitaly Nikolaev
<vitaly(a)voipsonic.com> wrote:
>Is contact field that SER sends to UAS is same for all requests ?
>
>If not probably you are not doing fix natted contact in some cases
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: serusers-bounces(a)iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org]
>On Behalf Of Java Rockx
>Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 11:17 AM
>To: serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
>Subject: [Serusers] Claims of ser-0.9 RFC3261 Violation
>
>I just spoke with an enginee from a manufacturer of the WorldAccxx
>telephone adapter and he told me that my SIP proxy was in voliation of
>RFC3261.
>
>Below is a SIP registration against my ser-0.9 proxy. I'm using media
>proxy for NAT traversal and he says that my 200 OK is not valid and
>therefore their IAD disregards the 200 OK response.
>
>The problem he claims is with the <Contact:> header in the 200 OK. SER
>has rewritten the contact becase his IAD is NATed. Should I not be
>doing this?
>
>The actual problem is that when their IAD is NATed the device looses
>its registration with ser because (they claim) that the REGISTER
>message they send has a <Contact> header iwith a different IP than
>what ser sends back in the 200 OK message.
>
>They referenced section 10.2.4 and 19.1.4 in RFC3261.
>
>Can anyone confirm or reject their claims?
>
>Please help.
>Paul
>
>REGISTER sip:sip.mycompany.com:5060 SIP/2.0
>Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.0.180;branch=z9hG4bKbb013e10d
>Max-Forwards: 70
>Content-Length: 0
>To: Accxx <sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060>
>From: Accxx <sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060>;tag=1eb7db0b344ac92
>Call-ID: bd4da0ebfe98297597243a92b1b0f868(a)192.168.0.180
>CSeq: 392547129 REGISTER
>Contact: Accxx <sip:1000@192.168.0.180;user=phone>;expires=200
>Allow: NOTIFY
>Allow: REFER
>Allow: OPTIONS
>Allow: INVITE
>Allow: ACK
>Allow: CANCEL
>Allow: BYE
>User-Agent: WATA200 Callctrl/1.5.1.1 MxSF/v3.2.6.26
>
>SIP/2.0 100 Trying
>Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
>192.168.0.180;branch=z9hG4bKbb013e10d;rport=36323;received=65.77.37.2
>To: Accxx <sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060>
>From: Accxx <sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060>;tag=1eb7db0b344ac92
>Call-ID: bd4da0ebfe98297597243a92b1b0f868(a)192.168.0.180
>CSeq: 392547129 REGISTER
>Content-Length: 0
>
>SIP/2.0 401 Unauthorized
>Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
>192.168.0.180;branch=z9hG4bKbb013e10d;rport=36323;received=65.77.37.2
>To: Accxx
><sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060>;tag=bf952ed189d8425c881b09485aa0b6f1
>.bdad
>From: Accxx <sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060>;tag=1eb7db0b344ac92
>Call-ID: bd4da0ebfe98297597243a92b1b0f868(a)192.168.0.180
>CSeq: 392547129 REGISTER
>WWW-Authenticate: Digest realm="sip.mycompany.com",
>nonce="42025161902f6f6af11f01f0a93ad2877e606bbc"
>Content-Length: 0
>
>REGISTER sip:sip.mycompany.com:5060 SIP/2.0
>Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.0.180;branch=z9hG4bK88fcb4e76
>Max-Forwards: 70
>Content-Length: 0
>To: Accxx <sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060>
>From: Accxx <sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060>;tag=1eb7db0b344ac92
>Call-ID: bd4da0ebfe98297597243a92b1b0f868(a)192.168.0.180
>CSeq: 392547130 REGISTER
>Contact: Accxx <sip:1000@192.168.0.180;user=phone>;expires=200
>Allow: NOTIFY
>Allow: REFER
>Allow: OPTIONS
>Allow: INVITE
>Allow: ACK
>Allow: CANCEL
>Allow: BYE
>Authorization:Digest
>response="18aabe984a6d89cc537cec9ce43b198d",username="1000",realm="sip
>.mycom
>pany.com",nonce="42025161902f6f6af11f01f0a93ad2877e606bbc",uri="sip:si
p.myco
mpany.com:5060"
User-Agent: WATA200 Callctrl/1.5.1.1 MxSF/v3.2.6.26
SIP/2.0 100 Trying
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
192.168.0.180;branch=z9hG4bK88fcb4e76;rport=36323;received=65.77.37.2
To: Accxx <sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060>
From: Accxx <sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060>;tag=1eb7db0b344ac92
Call-ID: bd4da0ebfe98297597243a92b1b0f868(a)192.168.0.180
CSeq: 392547130 REGISTER
Content-Length: 0
SIP/2.0 200 OK
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
192.168.0.180;branch=z9hG4bK88fcb4e76;rport=36323;received=65.77.37.2
To: Accxx
<sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060>;tag=bf952ed189d8425c881b09485aa0b6f1
.5e63
From: Accxx <sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060>;tag=1eb7db0b344ac92
Call-ID: bd4da0ebfe98297597243a92b1b0f868(a)192.168.0.180
CSeq: 392547130 REGISTER
Contact: <sip:1000@65.77.37.2:36323;user=phone>;expires=200,
<sip:1000@65.77.37.2:36235;user=phone>;expires=3
Content-Length: 0
_______________________________________________
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
2 Mar
2 Mar
7:25 p.m.
New subject: [Serusers] Claims of ser-0.9 RFC3261 Violation
I do not agree... Contact should be same in the dialog.
_____
From: serusers-bounces(a)iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org] On
Behalf Of Linda Xiao
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 1:16 PM
To: Java Rockx
Cc: serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
Subject: RE: [Serusers] Claims of ser-0.9 RFC3261 Violation
You are not the only service provider who makes this kind of changes. I also
encountered the same problem recently. But so far, this problem only
happened on one UA which has the same sip engine as this engineer's. All
other UAs in my hand can adapt this kinds of changes. So I personally think
that instead of complaining SIP proxy violation, I would rather complain the
interoperatibility of this sip engine.
regards/Linda
-----Original Message-----
From: serusers-bounces(a)iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org] On
Behalf Of Klaus Darilion
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 9:37 AM
To: Java Rockx
Cc: serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
Subject: Re: [Serusers] Claims of ser-0.9 RFC3261 Violation
I guess the engineer is right. Thus, I use fix_nated_register() instead
of fix_nated_contact which does not rewrite the contact header.
regards,
klaus
Java Rockx wrote:
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
It is the same. Their IAD successfully registers the
first time, but
loses its registration because re-REGISTER messages are claimed to be
in voliation of RFC3261.
Here is exactly what their engineers are telling me:
Paul,
Here is the my findings regarding the contact field in the
REGISTER message...
We suspect the registration fails because the Contact of 200OK does
not match the Contact of REGISTER:
co
From the capture, Our network toplogy is like:
TA: 192.168.0.180 <--------> Router 65.77.37.2 <----------> Softswitch
64.84.242.120
Packet 4 REGISTER:
Contact: <sip:3212514276@192.168.0.180;user=phone>;expires=200
Packet 6 200OK:
Contact: <sip:3212514276@65.77.37.2:36323;user=phone>;expires=200,
<sip:3212514276@65.77.37.2:36235;user=phone>;expires=3
In RFC3261, it says:
The 200 (OK) response from the registrar contains a list of Contact
fields enumerating all current bindings. The UA compares each
contact address to see if it created the contact address, using
comparison rules in Section 19.1.4. If so, it updates the expiration
time interval according to the expires parameter or, if absent, the
Expires field value. The UA then issues a REGISTER request for each
of its bindings before the expiration interval has elapsed. It MAY
combine several updates into one REGISTER request.
So obviously the contact addresses in 200OK don't match the one in
REGISTER.
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 11:28:51 -0500, Vitaly Nikolaev
<vitaly(a)voipsonic.com> wrote:
>Is contact field that SER sends to UAS is same for all requests ?
>
>If not probably you are not doing fix natted contact in some cases
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: serusers-bounces(a)iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org]
>On Behalf Of Java Rockx
>Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 11:17 AM
>To: serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
>Subject: [Serusers] Claims of ser-0.9 RFC3261 Violation
>
>I just spoke with an enginee from a manufacturer of the WorldAccxx
>telephone adapter and he told me that my SIP proxy was in voliation of
>RFC3261.
>
>Below is a SIP registration against my ser-0.9 proxy. I'm using media
>proxy for NAT traversal and he says that my 200 OK is not valid and
>therefore their IAD disregards the 200 OK response.
>
>The problem he claims is with the <Contact:> header in the 200 OK. SER
>has rewritten the contact becase his IAD is NATed. Should I not be
>doing this?
>
>The actual problem is that when their IAD is NATed the device looses
>its registration with ser because (they claim) that the REGISTER
>message they send has a <Contact> header iwith a different IP than
>what ser sends back in the 200 OK message.
>
>They referenced section 10.2.4 and 19.1.4 in RFC3261.
>
>Can anyone confirm or reject their claims?
>
>Please help.
>Paul
>
>REGISTER sip:sip.mycompany.com:5060 SIP/2.0
>Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.0.180;branch=z9hG4bKbb013e10d
>Max-Forwards: 70
>Content-Length: 0
>To: Accxx <sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060>
>From: Accxx <sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060>;tag=1eb7db0b344ac92
>Call-ID: bd4da0ebfe98297597243a92b1b0f868(a)192.168.0.180
>CSeq: 392547129 REGISTER
>Contact: Accxx <sip:1000@192.168.0.180;user=phone>;expires=200
>Allow: NOTIFY
>Allow: REFER
>Allow: OPTIONS
>Allow: INVITE
>Allow: ACK
>Allow: CANCEL
>Allow: BYE
>User-Agent: WATA200 Callctrl/1.5.1.1 MxSF/v3.2.6.26
>
>SIP/2.0 100 Trying
>Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
>192.168.0.180;branch=z9hG4bKbb013e10d;rport=36323;received=65.77.37.2
>To: Accxx <sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060>
>From: Accxx <sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060>;tag=1eb7db0b344ac92
>Call-ID: bd4da0ebfe98297597243a92b1b0f868(a)192.168.0.180
>CSeq: 392547129 REGISTER
>Content-Length: 0
>
>SIP/2.0 401 Unauthorized
>Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
>192.168.0.180;branch=z9hG4bKbb013e10d;rport=36323;received=65.77.37.2
>To: Accxx
><sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060>;tag=bf952ed189d8425c881b09485aa0b6f1
>.bdad
>From: Accxx <sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060>;tag=1eb7db0b344ac92
>Call-ID: bd4da0ebfe98297597243a92b1b0f868(a)192.168.0.180
>CSeq: 392547129 REGISTER
>WWW-Authenticate: Digest realm="sip.mycompany.com",
>nonce="42025161902f6f6af11f01f0a93ad2877e606bbc"
>Content-Length: 0
>
>REGISTER sip:sip.mycompany.com:5060 SIP/2.0
>Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.0.180;branch=z9hG4bK88fcb4e76
>Max-Forwards: 70
>Content-Length: 0
>To: Accxx <sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060>
>From: Accxx <sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060>;tag=1eb7db0b344ac92
>Call-ID: bd4da0ebfe98297597243a92b1b0f868(a)192.168.0.180
>CSeq: 392547130 REGISTER
>Contact: Accxx <sip:1000@192.168.0.180;user=phone>;expires=200
>Allow: NOTIFY
>Allow: REFER
>Allow: OPTIONS
>Allow: INVITE
>Allow: ACK
>Allow: CANCEL
>Allow: BYE
>Authorization:Digest
>response="18aabe984a6d89cc537cec9ce43b198d",username="1000",realm="sip
>.mycom
>pany.com",nonce="42025161902f6f6af11f01f0a93ad2877e606bbc",uri="sip:sip.my
mpany.com:5060"
User-Agent: WATA200 Callctrl/1.5.1.1 MxSF/v3.2.6.26
SIP/2.0 100 Trying
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
192.168.0.180;branch=z9hG4bK88fcb4e76;rport=36323;received=65.77.37.2
To: Accxx <sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060>
From: Accxx <sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060>;tag=1eb7db0b344ac92
Call-ID: bd4da0ebfe98297597243a92b1b0f868(a)192.168.0.180
CSeq: 392547130 REGISTER
Content-Length: 0
SIP/2.0 200 OK
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
192.168.0.180;branch=z9hG4bK88fcb4e76;rport=36323;received=65.77.37.2
To: Accxx
<sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060>;tag=bf952ed189d8425c881b09485aa0b6f1
.5e63
From: Accxx <sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060>;tag=1eb7db0b344ac92
Call-ID: bd4da0ebfe98297597243a92b1b0f868(a)192.168.0.180
CSeq: 392547130 REGISTER
Contact: <sip:1000@65.77.37.2:36323;user=phone>;expires=200,
<sip:1000@65.77.37.2:36235;user=phone>;expires=3
Content-Length: 0
_______________________________________________
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
7:44 p.m.
New subject: [Serusers] Claims of ser-0.9 RFC3261 Violation
Hi All.
Thanks to Vitaly for the answer to the question. I didn't even realize
there was a fix_nated_contact() function.
So for anyone else with this problem, I'm now calling force_rport()
and fix_nated_contact() before save("location") when processing
REGISTER messages.
I'm still using fix_nated_contact() in the reply route and before
relaying INVITE messages.
Many thanks Vitaly.
Paul
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 10:16:08 -0800, Linda Xiao
<linda.xiao(a)arkonnetworks.com> wrote:
You are not the only service provider who makes this kind of changes. I also
encountered the same problem recently. But so far, this problem only
happened on one UA which has the same sip engine as this engineer's. All
other UAs in my hand can adapt this kinds of changes. So I personally think
that instead of complaining SIP proxy violation, I would rather complain the
interoperatibility of this sip engine.
regards/Linda
-----Original Message-----
From: serusers-bounces(a)iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org] On
Behalf Of Klaus Darilion
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 9:37 AM
To: Java Rockx
Cc: serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
Subject: Re: [Serusers] Claims of ser-0.9 RFC3261 Violation
I guess the engineer is right. Thus, I use fix_nated_register() instead
of fix_nated_contact which does not rewrite the contact header.
regards,
klaus
Java Rockx wrote:
It is the same. Their IAD successfully registers
the first time, but
loses its registration because re-REGISTER messages are claimed to be
in voliation of RFC3261.
Here is exactly what their engineers are telling me:
Paul,
Here is the my findings regarding the contact field in the
REGISTER message...
We suspect the registration fails because the Contact of 200OK does
not match the Contact of REGISTER:
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
From the capture, Our network toplogy is like:
TA: 192.168.0.180 <--------> Router 65.77.37.2 <----------> Softswitch
64.84.242.120
Packet 4 REGISTER:
Contact: <sip:3212514276@192.168.0.180;user=phone>;expires=200
Packet 6 200OK:
Contact: <sip:3212514276@65.77.37.2:36323;user=phone>;expires=200,
<sip:3212514276@65.77.37.2:36235;user=phone>;expires=3
In RFC3261, it says:
The 200 (OK) response from the registrar contains a list of Contact
fields enumerating all current bindings. The UA compares each
contact address to see if it created the contact address, using
comparison rules in Section 19.1.4. If so, it updates the expiration
time interval according to the expires parameter or, if absent, the
Expires field value. The UA then issues a REGISTER request for each
of its bindings before the expiration interval has elapsed. It MAY
combine several updates into one REGISTER request.
So obviously the contact addresses in 200OK don't match the one in
REGISTER.
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 11:28:51 -0500, Vitaly Nikolaev
<vitaly(a)voipsonic.com> wrote:
Is contact field that SER sends to UAS is same for
all requests ?
If not probably you are not doing fix natted contact in some cases
-----Original Message-----
From: serusers-bounces(a)iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org]
On Behalf Of Java Rockx
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 11:17 AM
To: serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
Subject: [Serusers] Claims of ser-0.9 RFC3261 Violation
I just spoke with an enginee from a manufacturer of the WorldAccxx
telephone adapter and he told me that my SIP proxy was in voliation of
RFC3261.
Below is a SIP registration against my ser-0.9 proxy. I'm using media
proxy for NAT traversal and he says that my 200 OK is not valid and
therefore their IAD disregards the 200 OK response.
The problem he claims is with the <Contact:> header in the 200 OK. SER
has rewritten the contact becase his IAD is NATed. Should I not be
doing this?
The actual problem is that when their IAD is NATed the device looses
its registration with ser because (they claim) that the REGISTER
message they send has a <Contact> header iwith a different IP than
what ser sends back in the 200 OK message.
They referenced section 10.2.4 and 19.1.4 in RFC3261.
Can anyone confirm or reject their claims?
Please help.
Paul
REGISTER sip:sip.mycompany.com:5060 SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.0.180;branch=z9hG4bKbb013e10d
Max-Forwards: 70
Content-Length: 0
To: Accxx <sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060>
From: Accxx <sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060>;tag=1eb7db0b344ac92
Call-ID: bd4da0ebfe98297597243a92b1b0f868(a)192.168.0.180
CSeq: 392547129 REGISTER
Contact: Accxx <sip:1000@192.168.0.180;user=phone>;expires=200
Allow: NOTIFY
Allow: REFER
Allow: OPTIONS
Allow: INVITE
Allow: ACK
Allow: CANCEL
Allow: BYE
User-Agent: WATA200 Callctrl/1.5.1.1 MxSF/v3.2.6.26
SIP/2.0 100 Trying
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
192.168.0.180;branch=z9hG4bKbb013e10d;rport=36323;received=65.77.37.2
To: Accxx <sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060>
From: Accxx <sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060>;tag=1eb7db0b344ac92
Call-ID: bd4da0ebfe98297597243a92b1b0f868(a)192.168.0.180
CSeq: 392547129 REGISTER
Content-Length: 0
SIP/2.0 401 Unauthorized
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
192.168.0.180;branch=z9hG4bKbb013e10d;rport=36323;received=65.77.37.2
To: Accxx
<sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060>;tag=bf952ed189d8425c881b09485aa0b6f1
.bdad
From: Accxx <sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060>;tag=1eb7db0b344ac92
Call-ID: bd4da0ebfe98297597243a92b1b0f868(a)192.168.0.180
CSeq: 392547129 REGISTER
WWW-Authenticate: Digest realm="sip.mycompany.com",
nonce="42025161902f6f6af11f01f0a93ad2877e606bbc"
Content-Length: 0
REGISTER sip:sip.mycompany.com:5060 SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.0.180;branch=z9hG4bK88fcb4e76
Max-Forwards: 70
Content-Length: 0
To: Accxx <sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060>
From: Accxx <sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060>;tag=1eb7db0b344ac92
Call-ID: bd4da0ebfe98297597243a92b1b0f868(a)192.168.0.180
CSeq: 392547130 REGISTER
Contact: Accxx <sip:1000@192.168.0.180;user=phone>;expires=200
Allow: NOTIFY
Allow: REFER
Allow: OPTIONS
Allow: INVITE
Allow: ACK
Allow: CANCEL
Allow: BYE
Authorization:Digest
response="18aabe984a6d89cc537cec9ce43b198d",username="1000",realm="sip
.mycom
pany.com",nonce="42025161902f6f6af11f01f0a93ad2877e606bbc",uri="sip:sip.myco
mpany.com:5060"
User-Agent: WATA200 Callctrl/1.5.1.1 MxSF/v3.2.6.26
SIP/2.0 100 Trying
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
192.168.0.180;branch=z9hG4bK88fcb4e76;rport=36323;received=65.77.37.2
To: Accxx <sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060>
From: Accxx <sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060>;tag=1eb7db0b344ac92
Call-ID: bd4da0ebfe98297597243a92b1b0f868(a)192.168.0.180
CSeq: 392547130 REGISTER
Content-Length: 0
SIP/2.0 200 OK
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
192.168.0.180;branch=z9hG4bK88fcb4e76;rport=36323;received=65.77.37.2
To: Accxx
<sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060>;tag=bf952ed189d8425c881b09485aa0b6f1
.5e63
From: Accxx <sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060>;tag=1eb7db0b344ac92
Call-ID: bd4da0ebfe98297597243a92b1b0f868(a)192.168.0.180
CSeq: 392547130 REGISTER
Contact: <sip:1000@65.77.37.2:36323;user=phone>;expires=200,
<sip:1000@65.77.37.2:36235;user=phone>;expires=3
Content-Length: 0
_______________________________________________
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
8:01 p.m.
New subject: [Serusers] Claims of ser-0.9 RFC3261 Violation
Perhaps I jumped the gun here. My WorldAccxx IAD now keeps its
registration updated, but now since I've called fix_nated_register()
rather than fix_nated_contact() in my REGISTER message handler I
cannot call phones that are NATed on different networks.
I see in the location table in MySQL that the Contact column has the
value that came in with the REGISTER message and the Received column
has the NATed public IP and port number.
So what is the trick to fixing NATed contacts when handling INVITE messages?
Right now I'm calling force_rport() and fix_contact() prior to
lookup("location")
Regards,
Paul
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 13:44:19 -0500, Java Rockx <javarockx(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi All.
Thanks to Vitaly for the answer to the question. I didn't even realize
there was a fix_nated_contact() function.
So for anyone else with this problem, I'm now calling force_rport()
and fix_nated_contact() before save("location") when processing
REGISTER messages.
I'm still using fix_nated_contact() in the reply route and before
relaying INVITE messages.
Many thanks Vitaly.
Paul
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 10:16:08 -0800, Linda Xiao
<linda.xiao(a)arkonnetworks.com> wrote:
You are not the only service provider who makes this kind of changes. I also
encountered the same problem recently. But so far, this problem only
happened on one UA which has the same sip engine as this engineer's. All
other UAs in my hand can adapt this kinds of changes. So I personally think
that instead of complaining SIP proxy violation, I would rather complain the
interoperatibility of this sip engine.
regards/Linda
-----Original Message-----
From: serusers-bounces(a)iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org] On
Behalf Of Klaus Darilion
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 9:37 AM
To: Java Rockx
Cc: serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
Subject: Re: [Serusers] Claims of ser-0.9 RFC3261 Violation
I guess the engineer is right. Thus, I use fix_nated_register() instead
of fix_nated_contact which does not rewrite the contact header.
regards,
klaus
Java Rockx wrote:
It is the same. Their IAD successfully registers
the first time, but
loses its registration because re-REGISTER messages are claimed to be
in voliation of RFC3261.
Here is exactly what their engineers are telling me:
Paul,
Here is the my findings regarding the contact field in the
REGISTER message...
We suspect the registration fails because the Contact of 200OK does
not match the Contact of REGISTER:
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
From the capture, Our network toplogy is like:
TA: 192.168.0.180 <--------> Router 65.77.37.2 <----------> Softswitch
64.84.242.120
Packet 4 REGISTER:
Contact: <sip:3212514276@192.168.0.180;user=phone>;expires=200
Packet 6 200OK:
Contact: <sip:3212514276@65.77.37.2:36323;user=phone>;expires=200,
<sip:3212514276@65.77.37.2:36235;user=phone>;expires=3
In RFC3261, it says:
The 200 (OK) response from the registrar contains a list of Contact
fields enumerating all current bindings. The UA compares each
contact address to see if it created the contact address, using
comparison rules in Section 19.1.4. If so, it updates the expiration
time interval according to the expires parameter or, if absent, the
Expires field value. The UA then issues a REGISTER request for each
of its bindings before the expiration interval has elapsed. It MAY
combine several updates into one REGISTER request.
So obviously the contact addresses in 200OK don't match the one in
REGISTER.
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 11:28:51 -0500, Vitaly Nikolaev
<vitaly(a)voipsonic.com> wrote:
Is contact field that SER sends to UAS is same for
all requests ?
If not probably you are not doing fix natted contact in some cases
-----Original Message-----
From: serusers-bounces(a)iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org]
On Behalf Of Java Rockx
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 11:17 AM
To: serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
Subject: [Serusers] Claims of ser-0.9 RFC3261 Violation
I just spoke with an enginee from a manufacturer of the WorldAccxx
telephone adapter and he told me that my SIP proxy was in voliation of
RFC3261.
Below is a SIP registration against my ser-0.9 proxy. I'm using media
proxy for NAT traversal and he says that my 200 OK is not valid and
therefore their IAD disregards the 200 OK response.
The problem he claims is with the <Contact:> header in the 200 OK. SER
has rewritten the contact becase his IAD is NATed. Should I not be
doing this?
The actual problem is that when their IAD is NATed the device looses
its registration with ser because (they claim) that the REGISTER
message they send has a <Contact> header iwith a different IP than
what ser sends back in the 200 OK message.
They referenced section 10.2.4 and 19.1.4 in RFC3261.
Can anyone confirm or reject their claims?
Please help.
Paul
REGISTER sip:sip.mycompany.com:5060 SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.0.180;branch=z9hG4bKbb013e10d
Max-Forwards: 70
Content-Length: 0
To: Accxx <sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060>
From: Accxx <sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060>;tag=1eb7db0b344ac92
Call-ID: bd4da0ebfe98297597243a92b1b0f868(a)192.168.0.180
CSeq: 392547129 REGISTER
Contact: Accxx <sip:1000@192.168.0.180;user=phone>;expires=200
Allow: NOTIFY
Allow: REFER
Allow: OPTIONS
Allow: INVITE
Allow: ACK
Allow: CANCEL
Allow: BYE
User-Agent: WATA200 Callctrl/1.5.1.1 MxSF/v3.2.6.26
SIP/2.0 100 Trying
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
192.168.0.180;branch=z9hG4bKbb013e10d;rport=36323;received=65.77.37.2
To: Accxx <sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060>
From: Accxx <sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060>;tag=1eb7db0b344ac92
Call-ID: bd4da0ebfe98297597243a92b1b0f868(a)192.168.0.180
CSeq: 392547129 REGISTER
Content-Length: 0
SIP/2.0 401 Unauthorized
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
192.168.0.180;branch=z9hG4bKbb013e10d;rport=36323;received=65.77.37.2
To: Accxx
<sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060>;tag=bf952ed189d8425c881b09485aa0b6f1
.bdad
From: Accxx <sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060>;tag=1eb7db0b344ac92
Call-ID: bd4da0ebfe98297597243a92b1b0f868(a)192.168.0.180
CSeq: 392547129 REGISTER
WWW-Authenticate: Digest realm="sip.mycompany.com",
nonce="42025161902f6f6af11f01f0a93ad2877e606bbc"
Content-Length: 0
REGISTER sip:sip.mycompany.com:5060 SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.0.180;branch=z9hG4bK88fcb4e76
Max-Forwards: 70
Content-Length: 0
To: Accxx <sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060>
From: Accxx <sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060>;tag=1eb7db0b344ac92
Call-ID: bd4da0ebfe98297597243a92b1b0f868(a)192.168.0.180
CSeq: 392547130 REGISTER
Contact: Accxx <sip:1000@192.168.0.180;user=phone>;expires=200
Allow: NOTIFY
Allow: REFER
Allow: OPTIONS
Allow: INVITE
Allow: ACK
Allow: CANCEL
Allow: BYE
Authorization:Digest
response="18aabe984a6d89cc537cec9ce43b198d",username="1000",realm="sip
.mycom
pany.com",nonce="42025161902f6f6af11f01f0a93ad2877e606bbc",uri="sip:sip.myco
mpany.com:5060"
User-Agent: WATA200 Callctrl/1.5.1.1 MxSF/v3.2.6.26
SIP/2.0 100 Trying
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
192.168.0.180;branch=z9hG4bK88fcb4e76;rport=36323;received=65.77.37.2
To: Accxx <sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060>
From: Accxx <sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060>;tag=1eb7db0b344ac92
Call-ID: bd4da0ebfe98297597243a92b1b0f868(a)192.168.0.180
CSeq: 392547130 REGISTER
Content-Length: 0
SIP/2.0 200 OK
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
192.168.0.180;branch=z9hG4bK88fcb4e76;rport=36323;received=65.77.37.2
To: Accxx
<sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060>;tag=bf952ed189d8425c881b09485aa0b6f1
.5e63
From: Accxx <sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060>;tag=1eb7db0b344ac92
Call-ID: bd4da0ebfe98297597243a92b1b0f868(a)192.168.0.180
CSeq: 392547130 REGISTER
Contact: <sip:1000@65.77.37.2:36323;user=phone>;expires=200,
<sip:1000@65.77.37.2:36235;user=phone>;expires=3
Content-Length: 0
_______________________________________________
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
8:34 p.m.
New subject: [Serusers] Claims of ser-0.9 RFC3261 Violation
Here's one more update.
I don't know why things are this way, but when I use the fix_contact()
function in the mediaproxy.so module, it does not appear to properly
fix the contact header.
So I changed all fix_contact() references to fix_nated_contact() from
the nathelper.so module and now everything seems to work.
So what exactly does fix_contact() in mediaproxy.so do?
Regards,
Paul
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 14:01:12 -0500, Java Rockx <javarockx(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Perhaps I jumped the gun here. My WorldAccxx IAD now
keeps its
registration updated, but now since I've called fix_nated_register()
rather than fix_nated_contact() in my REGISTER message handler I
cannot call phones that are NATed on different networks.
I see in the location table in MySQL that the Contact column has the
value that came in with the REGISTER message and the Received column
has the NATed public IP and port number.
So what is the trick to fixing NATed contacts when handling INVITE messages?
Right now I'm calling force_rport() and fix_contact() prior to
lookup("location")
Regards,
Paul
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 13:44:19 -0500, Java Rockx <javarockx(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi All.
Thanks to Vitaly for the answer to the question. I didn't even realize
there was a fix_nated_contact() function.
So for anyone else with this problem, I'm now calling force_rport()
and fix_nated_contact() before save("location") when processing
REGISTER messages.
I'm still using fix_nated_contact() in the reply route and before
relaying INVITE messages.
Many thanks Vitaly.
Paul
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 10:16:08 -0800, Linda Xiao
<linda.xiao(a)arkonnetworks.com> wrote:
You are not the only service provider who makes this kind of changes. I also
encountered the same problem recently. But so far, this problem only
happened on one UA which has the same sip engine as this engineer's. All
other UAs in my hand can adapt this kinds of changes. So I personally think
that instead of complaining SIP proxy violation, I would rather complain the
interoperatibility of this sip engine.
regards/Linda
-----Original Message-----
From: serusers-bounces(a)iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org] On
Behalf Of Klaus Darilion
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 9:37 AM
To: Java Rockx
Cc: serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
Subject: Re: [Serusers] Claims of ser-0.9 RFC3261 Violation
I guess the engineer is right. Thus, I use fix_nated_register() instead
of fix_nated_contact which does not rewrite the contact header.
regards,
klaus
Java Rockx wrote:
It is the same. Their IAD successfully registers
the first time, but
loses its registration because re-REGISTER messages are claimed to be
in voliation of RFC3261.
Here is exactly what their engineers are telling me:
Paul,
Here is the my findings regarding the contact field in the
REGISTER message...
We suspect the registration fails because the Contact of 200OK does
not match the Contact of REGISTER:
>From the capture, Our network toplogy is like:
TA: 192.168.0.180 <--------> Router 65.77.37.2 <----------> Softswitch
64.84.242.120
Packet 4 REGISTER:
Contact: <sip:3212514276@192.168.0.180;user=phone>;expires=200
Packet 6 200OK:
Contact: <sip:3212514276@65.77.37.2:36323;user=phone>;expires=200,
<sip:3212514276@65.77.37.2:36235;user=phone>;expires=3
In RFC3261, it says:
The 200 (OK) response from the registrar contains a list of Contact
fields enumerating all current bindings. The UA compares each
contact address to see if it created the contact address, using
comparison rules in Section 19.1.4. If so, it updates the expiration
time interval according to the expires parameter or, if absent, the
Expires field value. The UA then issues a REGISTER request for each
of its bindings before the expiration interval has elapsed. It MAY
combine several updates into one REGISTER request.
So obviously the contact addresses in 200OK don't match the one in
REGISTER.
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 11:28:51 -0500, Vitaly Nikolaev
<vitaly(a)voipsonic.com> wrote:
>Is contact field that SER sends to UAS is same for all requests ?
>
>If not probably you are not doing fix natted contact in some cases
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: serusers-bounces(a)iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org]
>On Behalf Of Java Rockx
>Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 11:17 AM
>To: serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
>Subject: [Serusers] Claims of ser-0.9 RFC3261 Violation
>
>I just spoke with an enginee from a manufacturer of the WorldAccxx
>telephone adapter and he told me that my SIP proxy was in voliation of
>RFC3261.
>
>Below is a SIP registration against my ser-0.9 proxy. I'm using media
>proxy for NAT traversal and he says that my 200 OK is not valid and
>therefore their IAD disregards the 200 OK response.
>
>The problem he claims is with the <Contact:> header in the 200 OK. SER
>has rewritten the contact becase his IAD is NATed. Should I not be
>doing this?
>
>The actual problem is that when their IAD is NATed the device looses
>its registration with ser because (they claim) that the REGISTER
>message they send has a <Contact> header iwith a different IP than
>what ser sends back in the 200 OK message.
>
>They referenced section 10.2.4 and 19.1.4 in RFC3261.
>
>Can anyone confirm or reject their claims?
>
>Please help.
>Paul
>
>REGISTER sip:sip.mycompany.com:5060 SIP/2.0
>Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.0.180;branch=z9hG4bKbb013e10d
>Max-Forwards: 70
>Content-Length: 0
>To: Accxx <sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060>
>From: Accxx <sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060>;tag=1eb7db0b344ac92
>Call-ID: bd4da0ebfe98297597243a92b1b0f868(a)192.168.0.180
>CSeq: 392547129 REGISTER
>Contact: Accxx <sip:1000@192.168.0.180;user=phone>;expires=200
>Allow: NOTIFY
>Allow: REFER
>Allow: OPTIONS
>Allow: INVITE
>Allow: ACK
>Allow: CANCEL
>Allow: BYE
>User-Agent: WATA200 Callctrl/1.5.1.1 MxSF/v3.2.6.26
>
>SIP/2.0 100 Trying
>Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
>192.168.0.180;branch=z9hG4bKbb013e10d;rport=36323;received=65.77.37.2
>To: Accxx <sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060>
>From: Accxx <sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060>;tag=1eb7db0b344ac92
>Call-ID: bd4da0ebfe98297597243a92b1b0f868(a)192.168.0.180
>CSeq: 392547129 REGISTER
>Content-Length: 0
>
>SIP/2.0 401 Unauthorized
>Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
>192.168.0.180;branch=z9hG4bKbb013e10d;rport=36323;received=65.77.37.2
>To: Accxx
><sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060>;tag=bf952ed189d8425c881b09485aa0b6f1
>.bdad
>From: Accxx <sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060>;tag=1eb7db0b344ac92
>Call-ID: bd4da0ebfe98297597243a92b1b0f868(a)192.168.0.180
>CSeq: 392547129 REGISTER
>WWW-Authenticate: Digest realm="sip.mycompany.com",
>nonce="42025161902f6f6af11f01f0a93ad2877e606bbc"
>Content-Length: 0
>
>REGISTER sip:sip.mycompany.com:5060 SIP/2.0
>Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.0.180;branch=z9hG4bK88fcb4e76
>Max-Forwards: 70
>Content-Length: 0
>To: Accxx <sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060>
>From: Accxx <sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060>;tag=1eb7db0b344ac92
>Call-ID: bd4da0ebfe98297597243a92b1b0f868(a)192.168.0.180
>CSeq: 392547130 REGISTER
>Contact: Accxx <sip:1000@192.168.0.180;user=phone>;expires=200
>Allow: NOTIFY
>Allow: REFER
>Allow: OPTIONS
>Allow: INVITE
>Allow: ACK
>Allow: CANCEL
>Allow: BYE
>Authorization:Digest
>response="18aabe984a6d89cc537cec9ce43b198d",username="1000",realm="sip
>.mycom
>pany.com",nonce="42025161902f6f6af11f01f0a93ad2877e606bbc",uri="sip:sip.myco
>mpany.com:5060"
>User-Agent: WATA200 Callctrl/1.5.1.1 MxSF/v3.2.6.26
>
>SIP/2.0 100 Trying
>Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
>192.168.0.180;branch=z9hG4bK88fcb4e76;rport=36323;received=65.77.37.2
>To: Accxx <sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060>
>From: Accxx <sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060>;tag=1eb7db0b344ac92
>Call-ID: bd4da0ebfe98297597243a92b1b0f868(a)192.168.0.180
>CSeq: 392547130 REGISTER
>Content-Length: 0
>
>SIP/2.0 200 OK
>Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
>192.168.0.180;branch=z9hG4bK88fcb4e76;rport=36323;received=65.77.37.2
>To: Accxx
><sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060>;tag=bf952ed189d8425c881b09485aa0b6f1
>.5e63
>From: Accxx <sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060>;tag=1eb7db0b344ac92
>Call-ID: bd4da0ebfe98297597243a92b1b0f868(a)192.168.0.180
>CSeq: 392547130 REGISTER
>Contact: <sip:1000@65.77.37.2:36323;user=phone>;expires=200,
><sip:1000@65.77.37.2:36235;user=phone>;expires=3
>Content-Length: 0
>
>_______________________________________________
>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
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
8:46 p.m.
New subject: [Serusers] Claims of ser-0.9 RFC3261 Violation
That what I do to all requests:
if (nat_uac_test("4")) {
setflag(4);
force_rport();
};
if (nat_uac_test("1")) {
setflag(4);
fix_nated_contact();
};
Then for INVITE:
t_on_reply("1");
/* Handle re-INVITEs */
if (force_rtp_proxy("l")) {
t_on_reply("2");
} else {
if (isflagset(4))
if (force_rtp_proxy(""))
t_on_reply("2");
};
And
onreply_route[1] {
if (!(status=~"183" || status=~"200"))
break;
if (nat_uac_test("1"))
fix_nated_contact();
if (nat_uac_test("8"))
fix_nated_sdp("3");
}
onreply_route[2] {
if (!(status=~"183" || status=~"200"))
break;
if (nat_uac_test("1"))
fix_nated_contact();
force_rtp_proxy("");
}
Never used it with mediaproxy
-----Original Message-----
From: serusers-bounces(a)iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org] On
Behalf Of Java Rockx
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 2:01 PM
To: serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
Subject: Re: [Serusers] Claims of ser-0.9 RFC3261 Violation
Perhaps I jumped the gun here. My WorldAccxx IAD now keeps its
registration updated, but now since I've called fix_nated_register()
rather than fix_nated_contact() in my REGISTER message handler I
cannot call phones that are NATed on different networks.
I see in the location table in MySQL that the Contact column has the
value that came in with the REGISTER message and the Received column
has the NATed public IP and port number.
So what is the trick to fixing NATed contacts when handling INVITE messages?
Right now I'm calling force_rport() and fix_contact() prior to
lookup("location")
Regards,
Paul
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 13:44:19 -0500, Java Rockx <javarockx(a)gmail.com> wrote:
_______________________________________________
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
Hi All.
Thanks to Vitaly for the answer to the question. I didn't even realize
there was a fix_nated_contact() function.
So for anyone else with this problem, I'm now calling force_rport()
and fix_nated_contact() before save("location") when processing
REGISTER messages.
I'm still using fix_nated_contact() in the reply route and before
relaying INVITE messages.
Many thanks Vitaly.
Paul
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 10:16:08 -0800, Linda Xiao
<linda.xiao(a)arkonnetworks.com> wrote:
>
> You are not the only service provider who makes this kind of changes. I
also
> encountered the same problem recently. But so
far, this problem only
> happened on one UA which has the same sip engine as this engineer's. All
> other UAs in my hand can adapt this kinds of changes. So I personally
think
> that instead of complaining SIP proxy violation,
I would rather complain
the
> interoperatibility of this sip engine.
>
> regards/Linda
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: serusers-bounces(a)iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org] On
> Behalf Of Klaus Darilion
> Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 9:37 AM
> To: Java Rockx
> Cc: serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
> Subject: Re: [Serusers] Claims of ser-0.9 RFC3261 Violation
>
>
> I guess the engineer is right. Thus, I use fix_nated_register() instead
> of fix_nated_contact which does not rewrite the contact header.
>
> regards,
> klaus
>
>
> Java Rockx wrote:
>
> > It is the same. Their IAD successfully registers the first time, but
> > loses its registration because re-REGISTER messages are claimed to be
> > in voliation of RFC3261.
> >
> > Here is exactly what their engineers are telling me:
> >
> >
> > Paul,
> > Here is the my findings regarding the contact field in the
> > REGISTER message...
> >
> > We suspect the registration fails because the Contact of 200OK does
> > not match the Contact of REGISTER:
> >
> >>From the capture, Our network toplogy is like:
> > TA: 192.168.0.180 <--------> Router 65.77.37.2 <---------->
Softswitch
> > 64.84.242.120
> >
> > Packet 4 REGISTER:
> > Contact: <sip:3212514276@192.168.0.180;user=phone>;expires=200
> >
> > Packet 6 200OK:
> > Contact: <sip:3212514276@65.77.37.2:36323;user=phone>;expires=200,
> > <sip:3212514276@65.77.37.2:36235;user=phone>;expires=3
> >
> > In RFC3261, it says:
> > The 200 (OK) response from the registrar contains a list of Contact
> > fields enumerating all current bindings. The UA compares each
> > contact address to see if it created the contact address, using
> > comparison rules in Section 19.1.4. If so, it updates the
expiration
> > time interval according to the expires
parameter or, if absent, the
> > Expires field value. The UA then issues a REGISTER request for each
> > of its bindings before the expiration interval has elapsed. It MAY
> > combine several updates into one REGISTER request.
> >
> > So obviously the contact addresses in 200OK don't match the one in
> > REGISTER.
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 11:28:51 -0500, Vitaly Nikolaev
> > <vitaly(a)voipsonic.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Is contact field that SER sends to UAS is same for all requests ?
> >>
> >>If not probably you are not doing fix natted contact in some cases
> >>
> >>
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: serusers-bounces(a)iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org]
> >>On Behalf Of Java Rockx
> >>Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 11:17 AM
> >>To: serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
> >>Subject: [Serusers] Claims of ser-0.9 RFC3261 Violation
> >>
> >>I just spoke with an enginee from a manufacturer of the WorldAccxx
> >>telephone adapter and he told me that my SIP proxy was in voliation of
> >>RFC3261.
> >>
> >>Below is a SIP registration against my ser-0.9 proxy. I'm using media
> >>proxy for NAT traversal and he says that my 200 OK is not valid and
> >>therefore their IAD disregards the 200 OK response.
> >>
> >>The problem he claims is with the <Contact:> header in the 200 OK.
SER
> >>has rewritten the contact becase his IAD is NATed. Should I not be
> >>doing this?
> >>
> >>The actual problem is that when their IAD is NATed the device looses
> >>its registration with ser because (they claim) that the REGISTER
> >>message they send has a <Contact> header iwith a different IP than
> >>what ser sends back in the 200 OK message.
> >>
> >>They referenced section 10.2.4 and 19.1.4 in RFC3261.
> >>
> >>Can anyone confirm or reject their claims?
> >>
> >>Please help.
> >>Paul
> >>
> >>REGISTER sip:sip.mycompany.com:5060 SIP/2.0
> >>Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.0.180;branch=z9hG4bKbb013e10d
> >>Max-Forwards: 70
> >>Content-Length: 0
> >>To: Accxx <sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060>
> >>From: Accxx <sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060>;tag=1eb7db0b344ac92
> >>Call-ID: bd4da0ebfe98297597243a92b1b0f868(a)192.168.0.180
> >>CSeq: 392547129 REGISTER
> >>Contact: Accxx <sip:1000@192.168.0.180;user=phone>;expires=200
> >>Allow: NOTIFY
> >>Allow: REFER
> >>Allow: OPTIONS
> >>Allow: INVITE
> >>Allow: ACK
> >>Allow: CANCEL
> >>Allow: BYE
> >>User-Agent: WATA200 Callctrl/1.5.1.1 MxSF/v3.2.6.26
> >>
> >>SIP/2.0 100 Trying
> >>Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
> >>192.168.0.180;branch=z9hG4bKbb013e10d;rport=36323;received=65.77.37.2
> >>To: Accxx <sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060>
> >>From: Accxx <sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060>;tag=1eb7db0b344ac92
> >>Call-ID: bd4da0ebfe98297597243a92b1b0f868(a)192.168.0.180
> >>CSeq: 392547129 REGISTER
> >>Content-Length: 0
> >>
> >>SIP/2.0 401 Unauthorized
> >>Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
> >>192.168.0.180;branch=z9hG4bKbb013e10d;rport=36323;received=65.77.37.2
> >>To: Accxx
>
>><sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060>;tag=bf952ed189d8425c881b09485aa0b6f1
> >>.bdad
> >>From: Accxx <sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060>;tag=1eb7db0b344ac92
> >>Call-ID: bd4da0ebfe98297597243a92b1b0f868(a)192.168.0.180
> >>CSeq: 392547129 REGISTER
> >>WWW-Authenticate: Digest realm="sip.mycompany.com",
> >>nonce="42025161902f6f6af11f01f0a93ad2877e606bbc"
> >>Content-Length: 0
> >>
> >>REGISTER sip:sip.mycompany.com:5060 SIP/2.0
> >>Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.0.180;branch=z9hG4bK88fcb4e76
> >>Max-Forwards: 70
> >>Content-Length: 0
> >>To: Accxx <sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060>
> >>From: Accxx <sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060>;tag=1eb7db0b344ac92
> >>Call-ID: bd4da0ebfe98297597243a92b1b0f868(a)192.168.0.180
> >>CSeq: 392547130 REGISTER
> >>Contact: Accxx <sip:1000@192.168.0.180;user=phone>;expires=200
> >>Allow: NOTIFY
> >>Allow: REFER
> >>Allow: OPTIONS
> >>Allow: INVITE
> >>Allow: ACK
> >>Allow: CANCEL
> >>Allow: BYE
> >>Authorization:Digest
>
>>response="18aabe984a6d89cc537cec9ce43b198d",username="1000",realm="sip
> >>.mycom
>
>pany.com",nonce="42025161902f6f6af11f01f0a93ad2877e606bbc",uri="sip:sip.my
co
mpany.com:5060"
User-Agent: WATA200 Callctrl/1.5.1.1 MxSF/v3.2.6.26
SIP/2.0 100 Trying
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
192.168.0.180;branch=z9hG4bK88fcb4e76;rport=36323;received=65.77.37.2
To: Accxx <sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060>
From: Accxx <sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060>;tag=1eb7db0b344ac92
Call-ID: bd4da0ebfe98297597243a92b1b0f868(a)192.168.0.180
CSeq: 392547130 REGISTER
Content-Length: 0
SIP/2.0 200 OK
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
192.168.0.180;branch=z9hG4bK88fcb4e76;rport=36323;received=65.77.37.2
To: Accxx
<sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060>;tag=bf952ed189d8425c881b09485aa0b6f1
.5e63
From: Accxx <sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060>;tag=1eb7db0b344ac92
Call-ID: bd4da0ebfe98297597243a92b1b0f868(a)192.168.0.180
CSeq: 392547130 REGISTER
Contact: <sip:1000@65.77.37.2:36323;user=phone>;expires=200,
<sip:1000@65.77.37.2:36235;user=phone>;expires=3
Content-Length: 0
_______________________________________________
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
8 Mar
8 Mar
2:55 p.m.
New subject: [Serusers] Claims of ser-0.9 RFC3261 Violation
On 02-03 14:01, Java Rockx wrote:
Perhaps I jumped the gun here. My WorldAccxx IAD now
keeps its
registration updated, but now since I've called fix_nated_register()
rather than fix_nated_contact() in my REGISTER message handler I
cannot call phones that are NATed on different networks.
I see in the location table in MySQL that the Contact column has the
value that came in with the REGISTER message and the Received column
has the NATed public IP and port number.
So what is the trick to fixing NATed contacts when handling INVITE messages?
The trick is that SER will put the original (unmodified) contact into
the Request-URI, but will forward to the request to the IP and port in
received column (in the case the hostname in the request-uri will not
match the real destination of the packet).
Right now I'm calling force_rport() and
fix_contact() prior to
lookup("location")
Even if you call fix_nated_register for contacts, you still need to
call fix_nated_contact for INVITE and other messages, because you need
to rewrite the Contact in INVITE messages as well to make sure that
subsequent messages within the dialog created by the INVITE will make it
through the NAT. SER does not use the user location database when
forwarding BYE and thus it has no way of knowing that it should
forward the request to the public IP of the NAT, unless this
information is stored in the contact.
Jan.
Regards,
Paul
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 13:44:19 -0500, Java Rockx <javarockx(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi All.
Thanks to Vitaly for the answer to the question. I didn't even realize
there was a fix_nated_contact() function.
So for anyone else with this problem, I'm now calling force_rport()
and fix_nated_contact() before save("location") when processing
REGISTER messages.
I'm still using fix_nated_contact() in the reply route and before
relaying INVITE messages.
Many thanks Vitaly.
Paul
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 10:16:08 -0800, Linda Xiao
<linda.xiao(a)arkonnetworks.com> wrote:
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
You are not the only service provider who makes this kind of changes. I also
encountered the same problem recently. But so far, this problem only
happened on one UA which has the same sip engine as this engineer's. All
other UAs in my hand can adapt this kinds of changes. So I personally think
that instead of complaining SIP proxy violation, I would rather complain the
interoperatibility of this sip engine.
regards/Linda
-----Original Message-----
From: serusers-bounces(a)iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org] On
Behalf Of Klaus Darilion
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 9:37 AM
To: Java Rockx
Cc: serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
Subject: Re: [Serusers] Claims of ser-0.9 RFC3261 Violation
I guess the engineer is right. Thus, I use fix_nated_register() instead
of fix_nated_contact which does not rewrite the contact header.
regards,
klaus
Java Rockx wrote:
It is the same. Their IAD successfully registers
the first time, but
loses its registration because re-REGISTER messages are claimed to be
in voliation of RFC3261.
Here is exactly what their engineers are telling me:
Paul,
Here is the my findings regarding the contact field in the
REGISTER message...
We suspect the registration fails because the Contact of 200OK does
not match the Contact of REGISTER:
>From the capture, Our network toplogy is like:
TA: 192.168.0.180 <--------> Router 65.77.37.2 <----------> Softswitch
64.84.242.120
Packet 4 REGISTER:
Contact: <sip:3212514276@192.168.0.180;user=phone>;expires=200
Packet 6 200OK:
Contact: <sip:3212514276@65.77.37.2:36323;user=phone>;expires=200,
<sip:3212514276@65.77.37.2:36235;user=phone>;expires=3
In RFC3261, it says:
The 200 (OK) response from the registrar contains a list of Contact
fields enumerating all current bindings. The UA compares each
contact address to see if it created the contact address, using
comparison rules in Section 19.1.4. If so, it updates the expiration
time interval according to the expires parameter or, if absent, the
Expires field value. The UA then issues a REGISTER request for each
of its bindings before the expiration interval has elapsed. It MAY
combine several updates into one REGISTER request.
So obviously the contact addresses in 200OK don't match the one in
REGISTER.
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 11:28:51 -0500, Vitaly Nikolaev
<vitaly(a)voipsonic.com> wrote:
>Is contact field that SER sends to UAS is same for all requests ?
>
>If not probably you are not doing fix natted contact in some cases
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: serusers-bounces(a)iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org]
>On Behalf Of Java Rockx
>Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 11:17 AM
>To: serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
>Subject: [Serusers] Claims of ser-0.9 RFC3261 Violation
>
>I just spoke with an enginee from a manufacturer of the WorldAccxx
>telephone adapter and he told me that my SIP proxy was in voliation of
>RFC3261.
>
>Below is a SIP registration against my ser-0.9 proxy. I'm using media
>proxy for NAT traversal and he says that my 200 OK is not valid and
>therefore their IAD disregards the 200 OK response.
>
>The problem he claims is with the <Contact:> header in the 200 OK. SER
>has rewritten the contact becase his IAD is NATed. Should I not be
>doing this?
>
>The actual problem is that when their IAD is NATed the device looses
>its registration with ser because (they claim) that the REGISTER
>message they send has a <Contact> header iwith a different IP than
>what ser sends back in the 200 OK message.
>
>They referenced section 10.2.4 and 19.1.4 in RFC3261.
>
>Can anyone confirm or reject their claims?
>
>Please help.
>Paul
>
>REGISTER sip:sip.mycompany.com:5060 SIP/2.0
>Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.0.180;branch=z9hG4bKbb013e10d
>Max-Forwards: 70
>Content-Length: 0
>To: Accxx <sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060>
>From: Accxx <sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060>;tag=1eb7db0b344ac92
>Call-ID: bd4da0ebfe98297597243a92b1b0f868(a)192.168.0.180
>CSeq: 392547129 REGISTER
>Contact: Accxx <sip:1000@192.168.0.180;user=phone>;expires=200
>Allow: NOTIFY
>Allow: REFER
>Allow: OPTIONS
>Allow: INVITE
>Allow: ACK
>Allow: CANCEL
>Allow: BYE
>User-Agent: WATA200 Callctrl/1.5.1.1 MxSF/v3.2.6.26
>
>SIP/2.0 100 Trying
>Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
>192.168.0.180;branch=z9hG4bKbb013e10d;rport=36323;received=65.77.37.2
>To: Accxx <sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060>
>From: Accxx <sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060>;tag=1eb7db0b344ac92
>Call-ID: bd4da0ebfe98297597243a92b1b0f868(a)192.168.0.180
>CSeq: 392547129 REGISTER
>Content-Length: 0
>
>SIP/2.0 401 Unauthorized
>Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
>192.168.0.180;branch=z9hG4bKbb013e10d;rport=36323;received=65.77.37.2
>To: Accxx
><sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060>;tag=bf952ed189d8425c881b09485aa0b6f1
>.bdad
>From: Accxx <sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060>;tag=1eb7db0b344ac92
>Call-ID: bd4da0ebfe98297597243a92b1b0f868(a)192.168.0.180
>CSeq: 392547129 REGISTER
>WWW-Authenticate: Digest realm="sip.mycompany.com",
>nonce="42025161902f6f6af11f01f0a93ad2877e606bbc"
>Content-Length: 0
>
>REGISTER sip:sip.mycompany.com:5060 SIP/2.0
>Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.0.180;branch=z9hG4bK88fcb4e76
>Max-Forwards: 70
>Content-Length: 0
>To: Accxx <sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060>
>From: Accxx <sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060>;tag=1eb7db0b344ac92
>Call-ID: bd4da0ebfe98297597243a92b1b0f868(a)192.168.0.180
>CSeq: 392547130 REGISTER
>Contact: Accxx <sip:1000@192.168.0.180;user=phone>;expires=200
>Allow: NOTIFY
>Allow: REFER
>Allow: OPTIONS
>Allow: INVITE
>Allow: ACK
>Allow: CANCEL
>Allow: BYE
>Authorization:Digest
>response="18aabe984a6d89cc537cec9ce43b198d",username="1000",realm="sip
>.mycom
>pany.com",nonce="42025161902f6f6af11f01f0a93ad2877e606bbc",uri="sip:sip.myco
>mpany.com:5060"
>User-Agent: WATA200 Callctrl/1.5.1.1 MxSF/v3.2.6.26
>
>SIP/2.0 100 Trying
>Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
>192.168.0.180;branch=z9hG4bK88fcb4e76;rport=36323;received=65.77.37.2
>To: Accxx <sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060>
>From: Accxx <sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060>;tag=1eb7db0b344ac92
>Call-ID: bd4da0ebfe98297597243a92b1b0f868(a)192.168.0.180
>CSeq: 392547130 REGISTER
>Content-Length: 0
>
>SIP/2.0 200 OK
>Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
>192.168.0.180;branch=z9hG4bK88fcb4e76;rport=36323;received=65.77.37.2
>To: Accxx
><sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060>;tag=bf952ed189d8425c881b09485aa0b6f1
>.5e63
>From: Accxx <sip:1000@sip.mycompany.com:5060>;tag=1eb7db0b344ac92
>Call-ID: bd4da0ebfe98297597243a92b1b0f868(a)192.168.0.180
>CSeq: 392547130 REGISTER
>Contact: <sip:1000@65.77.37.2:36323;user=phone>;expires=200,
><sip:1000@65.77.37.2:36235;user=phone>;expires=3
>Content-Length: 0
>
>_______________________________________________
>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
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
7010
days inactive
7016
days old
6 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Jan Janak -
Java Rockx -
Linda Xiao -
Vitaly Nikolaev