[OpenSER-Devel] [ openser-Bugs-1459668 ] advertised_address does not change record-route header

[SourceForge.net]

Bugs item #1459668, was opened at 2006-03-27 17:27
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by robbyd
You can respond by visiting: 
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=743020&aid=1459668&group_id=139143

Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread,
including the initial issue submission, for this request,
not just the latest update.
Category: core
Group: ver 1.0.x
Status: Open
Resolution: Later
Priority: 2
Private: No
Submitted By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody)
Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody)
Summary: advertised_address does not change record-route header

Initial Comment:
 Setting the advertised_address and advertised_port to
a particular value in openser 1.0.1 :

should change VIA header, and other destination lumps
(e.g. Record-Route header).

In fact -when used- it actually ONLY changes the VIA
header and NOT the Record-Route header. This causes
calls to fail, since subsequent requests in the dialog
refer to the wrong (local 192.168.8.111) URI being
displayed in the original RR header

situation:
OPENSER 1.0.1 behind NAT -router, 
advertised_address and advertised_port set to:
advertised_address="xxx.dyndns.biz"
advertised_port=5060

client C1 on internet
client c2 on internet
Session Initiation Protocol
    Request-Line: INVITE sip:033 at 62.59.29.45 SIP/2.0
        Method: INVITE
        Resent Packet: False
    Message Header
        Record-Route:
<sip:192.168.8.111;ftag=482549029;lr=on>
        Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
xxx.dyndns.biz:5060;branch=z9hG4bKd80f.eab49d74.0
        Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
82.172.243.124:63586;received=192.168.8.111;rport=5062;branch=z9hG4bK7B021435F6723737AFF00EDDB84BECD5
        From: x
<sip:stefan at kubuntu.mydomain.org:5062>;tag=482549029
            SIP Display info: x 
            SIP from address:
sip:stefan at kubuntu.mydomain.org:5062
            SIP tag: 482549029


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Robby Dermody (robbyd)
Date: 2008-07-25 11:38

Message:
Logged In: YES 
user_id=569542
Originator: NO


in my experience, _still_ a problem with 1.3.x, 3 years later.

e.g. -- from a capture of an INVITE reply going back out to a SIP
provider:

Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
74.229.183.154:5060;branch=z9hG4bKb99.447733a.0;received=10.1.14.12  ###
stripped by the host itself, as appropriate, AFAIK
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 64.85.162.136:5060;branch=z9hG4bK6d543df6;rport=5060
Record-Route: <sip:10.1.14.12;lr=on;ftag=as3a5c107e>

With the above, the openser server has 10.1.14.12 assigned to it's
internal interface, is connected to a NAT gateway with public IP
74.229.183.154, and uses advertised_address=74.229.183.154. The SIP
provider is 64.85.162.136.

This bug seems to break Openser anytime it has a private IP and
advertised_address is used. Can we get this bug taken care of?

I see the following thread:

http://osdir.com/ml/voip.openser.user/2005-09/msg00154.html

But I'm not sure what that discussion led to.

Thanks,

Robby



----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Norm Brandinger (norm_brandinger)
Date: 2007-10-09 18:21

Message:
Logged In: YES 
user_id=1786021
Originator: NO

There is an interesting draft that might address this problem
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sip-record-route-fix-00

It calls for double record-route headers, one for the inbound interface
and the second for the outbound interface.  The document RECOMMENDS not to
use Record-Route rewriting.

Regards,
Norm

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody)
Date: 2007-10-09 16:50

Message:
Logged In: NO 

Not sure about 1.2, but the bug still exists in the trunk.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Henning Westerholt (henningw)
Date: 2007-03-16 08:33

Message:
Logged In: YES 
user_id=337916
Originator: NO

This bug is soon one year old. 
Is this report still valid for 1.2?



----------------------------------------------------------------------

You can respond by visiting: 
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=743020&aid=1459668&group_id=139143