[Serusers] 483 - Too many hops
Chintan Thakker
cthakker at ipnetfusion.com
Thu Jul 3 18:35:38 CEST 2003
Hi,
I tried with the latest version of 'ser' (0.8.11pre32) - the one you
have mentioned in this email. I still get this problem(483 - Too Many
Hops). I have also attached the trace. Also attached is version info
from 'serctl' and the modifications to ser.cfg
Thanks,
--- Start serctl monitor output ---
[cycle #: 117; if constant make sure server lives and fifo is on]
Server: Sip EXpress router (0.8.11pre32 (i386/linux))
Now: Thu Jul 3 11:38:29 2003
Up Since: Thu Jul 3 11:34:22 2003
Up time: 247 [sec]
Transaction Statistics
Current: 0 (0 waiting) Total: 70 (0 local)
Replied localy: 140
Completion status 6xx: 0, 5xx: 0, 4xx: 70, 3xx: 0,2xx: 0
Stateless Server Statistics
200: 2 202: 0 2xx: 0
300: 0 301: 0 302: 0 3xx: 0
400: 0 401: 0 403: 0 404: 0 407: 0 408: 0 483: 0 4xx: 0
500: 0 5xx: 0
6xx: 0
xxx: 0
failures: 0
UsrLoc Stats
Domain Registered Expired
'location' 2 0
--- End serctl monitor output ---
--- Start modifications to ser.cfg ---
-
68
69 # main routing logic
=> changed 70 alias="192.1.2.17"
71 route{
72
73 # initial sanity checks -- messages with
74 # max_forwards==0, or excessively long requests
--- End modifications to ser.cfg ---
--- Start ngrep trace ---
U 2003/07/03 11:36:24.652257 192.1.2.88:5060 -> 192.1.2.17:5060
INVITE sip:9727610001 at 192.1.2.17 SIP/2.0.Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
192.1.2.88:5060;b
ranch=z9hG4bK2685.Max-Forwards: 70.From: 9727619271
<sip:9727619271 at 192.1.2
.88>;tag=2685.To: 9727610001 <sip:9727610001 at 192.1.2.17>.Call-ID:
87661871@
192.1.2.88.CSeq: 1 INVITE.Contact:
<sip:9727619271 at 192.1.2.88>.Content-Type
: application/sdp.Content-Length: 128.Route:
<sip:192.1.2.17;lr>..v=0.o=use
rname 2685 2685 IN IP4 192.1.2.88.s=Session SDP.c=IN IP4
192.1.2.88.t=0 0.m
=audio 54454 RTP/AVP 0.a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000.
#
U 2003/07/03 11:36:24.653214 192.1.2.17:5060 -> 192.1.2.88:5060
SIP/2.0 100 trying -- your call is important to us..Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
192.1.
2.88:5060;branch=z9hG4bK2685..From: 9727619271
<sip:9727619271 at 192.1.2.88>;
tag=2685.To: 9727610001 <sip:9727610001 at 192.1.2.17>.Call-ID:
87661871 at 192.1
.2.88.CSeq: 1 INVITE.Server: Sip EXpress router (0.8.11pre32
(i386/linux)).
.Content-Length: 0..Warning: 392 192.1.2.17:5060 "Noisy feedback
tells: pi
d=6246 req_src_ip=192.1.2.88 req_src_port=5060
in_uri=sip:9727610001 at 192.1.
2.17 out_uri=sip:9727610001 at 192.1.2.17 via_cnt==1"....
#
U 2003/07/03 11:36:25.060733 192.1.2.17:5060 -> 192.1.2.88:5060
SIP/2.0 483 Too Many Hops..Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
192.1.2.88:5060;branch=z9hG4bK2
685..From: 9727619271 <sip:9727619271 at 192.1.2.88>;tag=2685.To:
9727610001 <
sip:9727610001 at 192.1.2.17>;tag=b27e1a1d33761e85846fc98f5f3a7e58.1464.Call-I
D: 87661871 at 192.1.2.88.CSeq: 1 INVITE.Server: Sip EXpress router
(0.8.11pre
32 (i386/linux))..Content-Length: 0..Warning: 392 192.1.2.17:5060
"Noisy fe
edback tells: pid=6249 req_src_ip=192.1.2.17 req_src_port=5060
in_uri=sip:
9727610001 at 192.1.2.17 out_uri=sip:9727610001 at 192.1.2.17 via_cnt==71"....
#
U 2003/07/03 11:36:25.227027 192.1.2.17:5060 -> 192.1.2.88:5060
SIP/2.0 483 Too Many Hops..Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
192.1.2.88:5060;branch=z9hG4bK2
685..From: 9727619271 <sip:9727619271 at 192.1.2.88>;tag=2685.To:
9727610001 <
sip:9727610001 at 192.1.2.17>;tag=b27e1a1d33761e85846fc98f5f3a7e58.1464.Call-I
D: 87661871 at 192.1.2.88.CSeq: 1 INVITE.Server: Sip EXpress router
(0.8.11pre
32 (i386/linux))..Content-Length: 0..Warning: 392 192.1.2.17:5060
"Noisy fe
edback tells: pid=6249 req_src_ip=192.1.2.17 req_src_port=5060
in_uri=sip:
9727610001 at 192.1.2.17 out_uri=sip:9727610001 at 192.1.2.17 via_cnt==71"....
#
U 2003/07/03 11:36:27.230705 192.1.2.17:5060 -> 192.1.2.88:5060
SIP/2.0 483 Too Many Hops..Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
192.1.2.88:5060;branch=z9hG4bK2
685..From: 9727619271 <sip:9727619271 at 192.1.2.88>;tag=2685.To:
9727610001 <
sip:9727610001 at 192.1.2.17>;tag=b27e1a1d33761e85846fc98f5f3a7e58.1464.Call-I
D: 87661871 at 192.1.2.88.CSeq: 1 INVITE.Server: Sip EXpress router
(0.8.11pre
32 (i386/linux))..Content-Length: 0..Warning: 392 192.1.2.17:5060
"Noisy fe
edback tells: pid=6249 req_src_ip=192.1.2.17 req_src_port=5060
in_uri=sip:
9727610001 at 192.1.2.17 out_uri=sip:9727610001 at 192.1.2.17 via_cnt==71"....
--- End ngrep trace ---
Jan Janak wrote:
>Hello,
>
>That was a bug in record routing module. It is now fixed in the stable
>branch of the CVS.
>
>See http://iptel.org/ser/cvs for description of downloading the stable
>branch, or you can download it from here:
>
>http://iptel.org/~janakj/stable/ser-0.8.11pre32_src.tar.gz
>
>Please upgrade your ser and try again. Thanks for reporting it.
>
> Jan.
>
>On 24-06 16:39, Chintan Thakker wrote:
>
>
>>Thank you for your patience,
>>I have put all the traces here..
>>
>>-- ngrep trace start --
>>
>>ngrep -t port 5060
>>interface: eth0 (192.1.2.0/255.255.255.0)
>>filter: ip and ( port 5060 )
>>#
>>#
>>U 2003/06/24 16:44:39.787675 192.1.2.88:5060 -> 192.1.2.17:5060
>> INVITE sip:9727610001 at 192.1.2.17 SIP/2.0.Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
>>192.1.2.88:5060;b
>> ranch=z9hG4bK2342.Max-Forwards: 70.From: 9727619271
>><sip:9727619271 at 192.1.2
>> .88>;tag=2342.To: 9727610001 <sip:9727610001 at 192.1.2.17>.Call-ID:
>>71327895@
>> 192.1.2.88.CSeq: 1 INVITE.Contact:
>><sip:9727619271 at 192.1.2.88>.Content-Type
>> : application/sdp.Content-Length: 128.Route:
>><sip:192.1.2.17;lr>..v=0.o=use
>> rname 2342 2342 IN IP4 192.1.2.88.s=Session SDP.c=IN IP4
>>192.1.2.88.t=0 0.m
>> =audio 54454 RTP/AVP 0.a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000.
>>#
>>U 2003/06/24 16:44:39.788623 192.1.2.17:5060 -> 192.1.2.88:5060
>> SIP/2.0 100 trying -- your call is important to us..Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
>>192.1.
>> 2.88:5060;branch=z9hG4bK2342..From: 9727619271
>><sip:9727619271 at 192.1.2.88>;
>> tag=2342.To: 9727610001 <sip:9727610001 at 192.1.2.17>.Call-ID:
>>71327895 at 192.1
>> .2.88.CSeq: 1 INVITE.Server: Sip EXpress router (0.8.11pre29
>>(i386/linux)).
>> .Content-Length: 0..Warning: 392 192.1.2.17:5060 "Noisy feedback
>>tells: pi
>> d=17073 req_src_ip=192.1.2.88 req_src_port=5060
>>in_uri=sip:9727610001 at 192.1
>> .2.17 out_uri=sip:9727610001 at 192.1.2.17 via_cnt==1"....
>>#
>>U 2003/06/24 16:44:40.213333 192.1.2.17:5060 -> 192.1.2.88:5060
>> SIP/2.0 483 Too Many Hops..Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
>>192.1.2.88:5060;branch=z9hG4bK2
>> 342..From: 9727619271 <sip:9727619271 at 192.1.2.88>;tag=2342.To:
>>9727610001 <
>>
>>sip:9727610001 at 192.1.2.17>;tag=b27e1a1d33761e85846fc98f5f3a7e58.e341.Call-I
>> D: 71327895 at 192.1.2.88.CSeq: 1 INVITE.Server: Sip EXpress router
>>(0.8.11pre
>> 29 (i386/linux))..Content-Length: 0..Warning: 392 192.1.2.17:5060
>>"Noisy fe
>> edback tells: pid=17072 req_src_ip=192.1.2.17 req_src_port=5060
>>in_uri=sip
>> :9727610001 at 192.1.2.17 out_uri=sip:9727610001 at 192.1.2.17 via_cnt==71"....
>>#
>>U 2003/06/24 16:44:40.813094 192.1.2.17:5060 -> 192.1.2.88:5060
>> SIP/2.0 483 Too Many Hops..Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
>>192.1.2.88:5060;branch=z9hG4bK2
>> 342..From: 9727619271 <sip:9727619271 at 192.1.2.88>;tag=2342.To:
>>9727610001 <
>>
>>sip:9727610001 at 192.1.2.17>;tag=b27e1a1d33761e85846fc98f5f3a7e58.e341.Call-I
>> D: 71327895 at 192.1.2.88.CSeq: 1 INVITE.Server: Sip EXpress router
>>(0.8.11pre
>> 29 (i386/linux))..Content-Length: 0..Warning: 392 192.1.2.17:5060
>>"Noisy fe
>> edback tells: pid=17072 req_src_ip=192.1.2.17 req_src_port=5060
>>in_uri=sip
>> :9727610001 at 192.1.2.17 out_uri=sip:9727610001 at 192.1.2.17 via_cnt==71"....
>>#
>>U 2003/06/24 16:44:42.816700 192.1.2.17:5060 -> 192.1.2.88:5060
>> SIP/2.0 483 Too Many Hops..Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
>>192.1.2.88:5060;branch=z9hG4bK2
>> 342..From: 9727619271 <sip:9727619271 at 192.1.2.88>;tag=2342.To:
>>9727610001 <
>>
>>sip:9727610001 at 192.1.2.17>;tag=b27e1a1d33761e85846fc98f5f3a7e58.e341.Call-I
>> D: 71327895 at 192.1.2.88.CSeq: 1 INVITE.Server: Sip EXpress router
>>(0.8.11pre
>> 29 (i386/linux))..Content-Length: 0..Warning: 392 192.1.2.17:5060
>>"Noisy fe
>> edback tells: pid=17072 req_src_ip=192.1.2.17 req_src_port=5060
>>in_uri=sip
>> :9727610001 at 192.1.2.17 out_uri=sip:9727610001 at 192.1.2.17 via_cnt==71"....
>>
>>-- ngrep trace end --
>>
>>Andy Blen wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>That was a false track. Can you make us a favor please and send messages
>>>as you see them on your loopback interface.
>>>
>>>thanks,
>>>
>>>-andy
>>>
>>>At 11:00 PM 6/24/2003, Chintan Thakker wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I do not completely follow what you are trying to say,
>>>>
>>>>The server is running on 192.1.2.17 and I am registering two users
>>>>
>>>>Thank you,
>>>>
>>>>-- start ./serctl ul show --
>>>>===Domain list===
>>>>---Domain---
>>>>name : 'location'
>>>>size : 512
>>>>table: 0x422b88c4
>>>>d_ll {
>>>>n : 2
>>>>first: 0x422ba8f4
>>>>last : 0x422baa78
>>>>}
>>>>
>>>>...Record(0x422ba8f4)...
>>>>domain: 'location'
>>>>aor : '9727619271'
>>>>~~~Contact(0x422ba988)~~~
>>>>domain : 'location'
>>>>aor : '9727619271'
>>>>Contact: 'sip:9727619271 at 192.1.2.88'
>>>>Expires: 3569
>>>>q : 0.00
>>>>Call-ID: '1241 at 192.1.2.88'
>>>>CSeq : 1
>>>>replic : 0
>>>>State : CS_NEW
>>>>next : (nil)
>>>>prev : (nil)
>>>>~~~/Contact~~~~
>>>>.../Record...
>>>>...Record(0x422baa78)...
>>>>domain: 'location'
>>>>aor : '9727610001'
>>>>~~~Contact(0x422bab0c)~~~
>>>>domain : 'location'
>>>>aor : '9727610001'
>>>>Contact: 'sip:9727610001 at 192.1.2.223'
>>>>Expires: 3595
>>>>q : 0.00
>>>>Call-ID: '1281 at 192.1.2.223'
>>>>CSeq : 1
>>>>replic : 0
>>>>State : CS_NEW
>>>>next : (nil)
>>>>prev : (nil)
>>>>~~~/Contact~~~~
>>>>.../Record...
>>>>
>>>>---/Domain---
>>>>===/Domain list===
>>>>-- end ./serctl ul show --
>>>>Andy Blen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>(you forgot to CC the mailing list)
>>>>>
>>>>>a possibility is that the contacts you registered cause a loop.
>>>>>
>>>>>andy
>>>>>
>>>>>At 06:22 PM 6/24/2003, Chintan Thakker wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Hi,
>>>>>>Seems I missed something, I am sending INVITE to
>>>>>>sip:9727610001 at 192.1.2.17 with Route: <sip:192.1.2.17;lr> to the proxy
>>>>>>server ('ser') running on 192.1.2.17 and getting 483 - too many hops
>>>>>>message. I modified ser.conf to add alias = "192.1.2.17" but it still
>>>>>>gives me the same problem.
>>>>>>What am I missing out ?. I guess an 'alias=192.1.2.17' entry should
>>>>>>return a true to 'uri==myself' matching performed in the script and
>>>>>>make the server process that request rather than forwarding it (to
>>>>>>itself in this case)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Thanks,
>>>>>>Chintan
>>>>>>
>>>>>>-- ser.cfg --
>>>>>>
>>>>>>1 #
>>>>>>2 # $Id: ser.cfg,v 1.20 2003/05/31 21:12:19 jiri Exp $
>>>>>>3 #
>>>>>>4 # simple quick-start config script
>>>>>>5 #
>>>>>>6
>>>>>>7 # ----------- global configuration parameters
>>>>>>------------------------
>>>>>>8
>>>>>>9 debug=3 # debug level (cmd line: -dddddddddd)
>>>>>>10 fork=yes
>>>>>>11 log_stderror=no # (cmd line: -E)
>>>>>>12
>>>>>>13 /* Uncomment these lines to enter debugging mode
>>>>>>14 debug=7
>>>>>>15 fork=no
>>>>>>16 log_stderror=yes
>>>>>>17 */
>>>>>>18
>>>>>>19 check_via=no # (cmd. line: -v)
>>>>>>20 dns=no # (cmd. line: -r)
>>>>>>21 rev_dns=no # (cmd. line: -R)
>>>>>>22 port=5060
>>>>>>23 children=4
>>>>>>24 fifo="/tmp/ser_fifo"
>>>>>>25
>>>>>>26 # ------------------ module loading
>>>>>>----------------------------------
>>>>>>27
>>>>>>28 # Uncomment this if you want to use SQL database
>>>>>>29 #loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/mysql.so"
>>>>>>30
>>>>>>31 loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/sl.so"
>>>>>>32 loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/tm.so"
>>>>>>33 loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/rr.so"
>>>>>>34 loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/maxfwd.so"
>>>>>>35 loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/usrloc.so"
>>>>>>36 loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/registrar.so"
>>>>>>37
>>>>>>38 # Uncomment this if you want digest authentication
>>>>>>39 # mysql.so must be loaded !
>>>>>>40 #loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/auth.so"
>>>>>>41 #loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/auth_db.so"
>>>>>>42
>>>>>>43 # ----------------- setting module-specific parameters
>>>>>>---------------
>>>>>>44
>>>>>>45 # -- usrloc params --
>>>>>>46
>>>>>>47 modparam("usrloc", "db_mode", 0)
>>>>>>48
>>>>>>49 # Uncomment this if you want to use SQL database
>>>>>>50 # for persistent storage and comment the previous line
>>>>>>51 #modparam("usrloc", "db_mode", 2)
>>>>>>52
>>>>>>53 # -- auth params --
>>>>>>54 # Uncomment if you are using auth module
>>>>>>55 #
>>>>>>56 #modparam("auth_db", "calculate_ha1", yes)
>>>>>>57 #
>>>>>>58 # If you set "calculate_ha1" parameter to yes (which true in this
>>>>>>config),
>>>>>>59 # uncomment also the following parameter)
>>>>>>60 #
>>>>>>61 #modparam("auth_db", "password_column", "password")
>>>>>>62
>>>>>>63 # ------------------------- request routing logic
>>>>>>-------------------
>>>>>>64
>>>>>>65 #add aliases
>>>>>>66 alias="192.1.2.17"
>>>>>>67
>>>>>>68 # main routing logic
>>>>>>69
>>>>>>70 route{
>>>>>>71
>>>>>>72 # initial sanity checks -- messages with
>>>>>>73 # max_forwards==0, or excessively long requests
>>>>>>74 if (!mf_process_maxfwd_header("10")) {
>>>>>>75 sl_send_reply("483","Too Many Hops");
>>>>>>76 break;
>>>>>>77 };
>>>>>>78 if (len_gt( max_len )) {
>>>>>>79 sl_send_reply("513", "Message too big");
>>>>>>80 break;
>>>>>>81 };
>>>>>>82
>>>>>>83 # we record-route all messages -- to make sure that
>>>>>>84 # subsequent messages will go through our proxy; that's
>>>>>>85 # particularly good if upstream and downstream entities
>>>>>>86 # use different transport protocol
>>>>>>87 record_route();
>>>>>>88 # loose-route processing
>>>>>>89 if (loose_route()) {
>>>>>>90 t_relay();
>>>>>>91 break;
>>>>>>92 };
>>>>>>93
>>>>>>94 # if the request is for other domain use UsrLoc
>>>>>>95 # (in case, it does not work, use the following command
>>>>>>96 # with proper names and addresses in it)
>>>>>>97 if (uri==myself) {
>>>>>>98
>>>>>>99 if (method=="REGISTER") {
>>>>>>100
>>>>>>101 # Uncomment this if you want to use digest authentication
>>>>>>102 # if (!www_authorize("iptel.org",
>>>>>>"subscriber")) {
>>>>>>103 # www_challenge("iptel.org", "0");
>>>>>>
>>>>>>53,1 65%
>>>>>>104 # break;
>>>>>>105 # };
>>>>>>106
>>>>>>107 save("location");
>>>>>>108 break;
>>>>>>109 };
>>>>>>110
>>>>>>111 # native SIP destinations are handled using our
>>>>>>USRLOC DB
>>>>>>112 if (!lookup("location")) {
>>>>>>113 sl_send_reply("404", "Not Found");
>>>>>>114 break;
>>>>>>115 };
>>>>>>116 };
>>>>>>117 #Let tje server [rpcess tje cirremt reqiest
>>>>>>118 #if(uri =~ "^sip:(.+@)?(192\.1\.2\.17)([:;\?].*)?$" )
>>>>>>119 #{
>>>>>>120 # break;
>>>>>>121 #};
>>>>>>122
>>>>>>123 # forward to current uri now; use stateful forwarding; that
>>>>>>124 # works reliably even if we forward from TCP to UDP
>>>>>>125 if (!t_relay()) {
>>>>>>126 sl_reply_error();
>>>>>>127 };
>>>>>>128
>>>>>>129 }
>>>>>>130
>>>>>>- end ser.cfg --
>>>>>>Andy Blen wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>most likely a misconfig issue on your side, feel free to read the doc,
>>>>>>>http://www.iptel.org/ser/doc/prerelease/x1026.html#AEN1032
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>andy
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>At 12:18 AM 6/21/2003, Chintan Thakker wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Hi,
>>>>>>>>Consider the following scenario. UA1 is trying to call UA2 both
>>>>>>>>registered with the same proxy. (UA1 -> 'ser' -> UA2)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>1.
>>>>>>>>UA1 sends INVITE to the proxy with request uri set to UA2. It also
>>>>>>>>sets the Route header in the invite to that of the proxy.
>>>>>>>>This returns a 483 - too many hops to UA1
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>It seems that in the above mentioned scenario, the proxy loops back
>>>>>>>>the INVITE multiple times locally. This decrements the Max Forwards
>>>>>>>>value every time until it becomes zero and hence sends 483 back to
>>>>>>>>UA1. It seems to me this is not the correct behavior of the server.
>>>>>>>>It should forward the request to UA2.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Thanks in advance,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Chintan
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>-- Start trace --
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>U 2003/06/20 15:24:42.362466 192.1.2.88:5060 -> 192.1.2.17:5060
>>>>>>>>INVITE sip:9727610001 at 192.1.2.17 SIP/2.0.Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
>>>>>>>>192.1.2.88:5060;b
>>>>>>>>ranch=z9hG4bK421668676.Max-Forwards: 70.From: 9727619271
>>>>>>>><sip:9727619271 at 19
>>>>>>>>2.1.2.88>;tag=421668676.To: 9727610001
>>>>>>>><sip:9727610001 at 192.1.2.17>.Call-ID:
>>>>>>>>421668676 at 192.1.2.88.CSeq: 1 INVITE.Contact:
>>>>>>>><sip:9727619271 at 192.1.2.88>.C
>>>>>>>>ontent-Type: application/sdp.Content-Length: 138.Route:
>>>>>>>><sip:192.1.2.17;lr>
>>>>>>>>..v=0.o=username 421668676 421668676 IN IP4 192.1.2.88.s=Session
>>>>>>>>SDP.c=IN I
>>>>>>>>P4 192.1.2.88.t=0 0.m=audio 54454 RTP/AVP 0.a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>U 2003/06/20 15:24:42.363813 192.1.2.17:5060 -> 192.1.2.88:5060
>>>>>>>>SIP/2.0 100 trying -- your call is important to us..Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
>>>>>>>>192.1.
>>>>>>>>2.88:5060;branch=z9hG4bK421668676..From: 9727619271
>>>>>>>><sip:9727619271 at 192.1.2
>>>>>>>>.88>;tag=421668676.To: 9727610001
>>>>>>>><sip:9727610001 at 192.1.2.17>.Call-ID: 4216
>>>>>>>>68676 at 192.1.2.88.CSeq: 1 INVITE.Server: Sip EXpress router
>>>>>>>>(0.8.11pre29 (i3
>>>>>>>>86/linux))..Content-Length: 0..Warning: 392 192.1.2.17:5060 "Noisy
>>>>>>>>feedback
>>>>>>>>tells: pid=15107 req_src_ip=192.1.2.88 req_src_port=5060
>>>>>>>>in_uri=sip:97276
>>>>>>>>10001 at 192.1.2.17 out_uri=sip:9727610001 at 192.1.2.17 via_cnt==1"....
>>>>>>>>#
>>>>>>>>U 2003/06/20 15:24:42.794681 192.1.2.17:5060 -> 192.1.2.88:5060
>>>>>>>>SIP/2.0 483 Too Many Hops..Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
>>>>>>>>192.1.2.88:5060;branch=z9hG4bK4
>>>>>>>>21668676..From: 9727619271
>>>>>>>><sip:9727619271 at 192.1.2.88>;tag=421668676.To: 97
>>>>>>>>27610001
>>>>>>>><sip:9727610001 at 192.1.2.17>;tag=b27e1a1d33761e85846fc98f5f3a7e58.4
>>>>>>>>632.Call-ID: 421668676 at 192.1.2.88.CSeq: 1 INVITE.Server: Sip EXpress
>>>>>>>>router
>>>>>>>>(0.8.11pre29 (i386/linux))..Content-Length: 0..Warning: 392
>>>>>>>>192.1.2.17:506
>>>>>>>>0 "Noisy feedback tells: pid=15107 req_src_ip=192.1.2.17
>>>>>>>>req_src_port=5060
>>>>>>>>in_uri=sip:9727610001 at 192.1.2.17 out_uri=sip:9727610001 at 192.1.2.17
>>>>>>>>via_cnt
>>>>>>>>==71"....
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>-- End trace --
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>ps: We checked it with loose routing(suceeding ';lr' present in URIs
>>>>>>>>in Route) as well as strict routing(suceeding ';lr' not present in
>>>>>>>>URIs in Route). Should the type of routing used matter ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>Serusers mailing list
>>>>>>>>serusers at lists.iptel.org
>>>>>>>>http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>--
>>>>>>>Andy Blen
>>>>>>>iptel.org Services
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>--
>>>>>Andy Blen
>>>>>iptel.org Services
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>--
>>>Andy Blen
>>>iptel.org Services
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Serusers mailing list
>>serusers at lists.iptel.org
>>http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
>>
>>
>
>
>
More information about the sr-users
mailing list