[Serusers] SER losing SIP registrations

Innocent Evil innocent.evil at inbox.com
Thu Jun 23 22:48:26 CEST 2005 

I was having the same issue last night on a valip public ip.
BTW, I am using CVS HEAD version that I downloaded 1 or 2 weeks back.

Thanks




> -----Original Message-----
> From: listbot.br at gmail.com
> Sent: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 15:45:45 -0300
> To: chiahuey at genme.com, jcastro at instant.com.br, serusers at iptel.org
> Subject: Re: [Serusers] SER losing SIP registrations
>
> Jan,
>
> We experience the same problems over here with some of our clients, only
> here
> some of them are actually on valid IPs (no NAT).  Any ideas?
>
> Thnx,
> Fernando
>
>
>
> On Thursday 23 June 2005 08:44, 'Jan Janak' wrote:
> > OK, the REGISTER message contains a private IP in the contact. That
> > would force SER to rewrite the IP address with the public IP of the NAT
> > and the user agent is probably unable to match the contact and find out
> > what the expires value set by the server is. That explains why it works
> > with Expires: 60 header field parameter but does not work with
> > ;expires=60 contact parameter.
> >
> > There are two options:
> >
> > 1) Hack -- insert Expires: 50 header field into the reply using
> >    append_to_reply function from textopts module. Note that the value
> you
> >    insert this way must be lower than the value of expires parameter in
> the
> >    contact.
> >
> > 2) Use fix_nated_register instead of fix_nated_contact for REGISTER
> >    messages. This function does not rewrite the IP in contact, instead
> >    it would append the public IP and port used by the NAT as a
> parameter
> >    of Contact header field. The two values will be stored separately in
> >    the user location database. When forwarding a message to the
> contact,
> >    the Request-URI will contain the private IP of the user agent, but
> >    the message will be sent to the public IP of the NAT (destination
> set
> >    will be used). This way the Contact in 200 OK reply will be not
> >    modified and the user agent should be able to set the expires value
> >    properly.
> >
> >    Jan.
> >
> > On 23-06-2005 17:59, Chia Huey Lim wrote:
> > > Sure...
> > >
> > > SER:
> > > REGISTER sip:xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx SIP/2.0
> > > Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.0.4:5060;branch=z9hG4bKd9e688a70
> > > Max-Forwards: 70
> > > Content-Length: 0
> > > To: 5008 <sip:18182002 at xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx>
> > > From: 5008 <sip:18182002 at xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx>;tag=1f55b6cd5586c2d
> > > Call-ID: 928d75b5b6c7d128a0ccaf24e5b52c74 at 192.168.0.4
> > > CSeq: 1028949335 REGISTER
> > > Contact: 5008 <sip:18182002 at 192.168.0.4:5060;user=phone>;expires=60
> > > Allow: NOTIFY
> > > Allow: REFER
> > > Allow: OPTIONS
> > > Allow: INVITE
> > > Allow: ACK
> > > Allow: CANCEL
> > > Allow: BYE
> > > User-Agent: InterEdge-ieta200
> > >
> > > ASTERISK:
> > > REGISTER sip:xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx SIP/2.0
> > > Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.0.4;branch=z9hG4bKf91124aeb
> > > Max-Forwards: 70
> > > Content-Length: 0
> > > To: 603200661 <sip:603200661 at xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx>
> > > From: 603200661 <sip:603200661 at xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx>;tag=7f4a78971dd573b
> > > Call-ID: 59a4ee90d5fbe74f8de459fb2506acf0 at 192.168.0.4
> > > CSeq: 937060361 REGISTER
> > > Contact: 603200661
> <sip:603200661 at 192.168.0.4;user=phone>;expires=1200
> > > Allow: NOTIFY
> > > Allow: REFER
> > > Allow: OPTIONS
> > > Allow: INVITE
> > > Allow: ACK
> > > Allow: CANCEL
> > > Allow: BYE
> > > Authorization:Digest
> > >
> response="869ebcdfd4f83cfd805c0b03e768b9a5",username="603200661",realm="x
> > >xx" ,nonce="297966ac",uri="sip:xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx"
> > > User-Agent: InterEdge-ieta200
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Chia
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: 'Jan Janak' [mailto:jan at iptel.org]
> > > Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 5:44 PM
> > > To: Chia Huey Lim
> > > Cc: 'Juan Carlos Castro y Castro'; serusers at iptel.org
> > > Subject: Re: [Serusers] SER losing SIP registrations
> > >
> > > Could send me also the REGISTER messages ?
> > >
> > >   Jan.
> > >
> > > On 23-06-2005 17:36, Chia Huey Lim wrote:
> > > > I am facing the same problem too, one of the UA that I am testing
> on
> > > > does not re-register itself. It has no problem re-registering
> itself to
> > >
> > > asterisk.
> > >
> > > > I compared the ethereal trace for the registration on SER and
> Asterisk.
> > >
> > > And
> > >
> > > > I found that Asterisk append "Expires: xxx" above the "Contact: "
> while
> > >
> > > SER
> > >
> > > > does not. Anything that I can do to append "Expires: xxx" in the
> 200 ok
> > > > packet that SER is sending out?
> > > >
> > > > Below is the comparison:
> > > >
> > > > SER:
> > > > ?Ä?¸e`SIP/2.0 200 OK
> > > > Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
> > >
> > >
> 192.168.0.4:5060;branch=z9hG4bKef17e9623;rport=32914;received=xxx.xxx.xxx
> > >.xx
> > >
> > > > x
> > > > To: 5008
> > > >
> <sip:18182002 at xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx>;tag=856642a4d7f9f16db9502202a011388b.db9
> > > >a From: 5008 <sip:18182002 at xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx>;tag=1f55b6cd5586c2d
> > > > Call-ID: 928d75b5b6c7d128a0ccaf24e5b52c74 at 192.168.0.4
> > > > CSeq: 1028949336 REGISTER
> > >
> > >
> Contact:<sip:18182002 at xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:32914;user=phone>;expires=60;receiv
> > >ed=
> > >
> > > > "sip:xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:32914"
> > > > Server: Sip EXpress router (0.9.0 (i386/linux))
> > > > Content-Length: 0
> > > >
> > > > ASTERISK:
> > > > Ä?Ä?
> > > > x9SIP/2.0 200 OK
> > > > Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
> > > >
> 192.168.0.4;branch=z9hG4bKf91124aeb;received=xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx;rport=3291
> > > >4 From: 603200661
> <sip:603200661 at xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx>;tag=7f4a78971dd573b
> > > > To: 603200661 <sip:603200661 at xxx.xxx.xxxx.xxx>;tag=as4f0c60fe
> > > > Call-ID: 59a4ee90d5fbe74f8de459fb2506acf0 at xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx
> > > > CSeq: 937060361 REGISTER
> > > > User-Agent: xxx
> > > > Allow: INVITE, ACK, CANCEL, OPTIONS, BYE, REFER
> > > > Expires: 1200
> > > > Contact: <sip:603200661 at xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx;user=phone>;expires=1200
> > > > Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 04:36:20 GMT
> > > > Content-Length: 0
> > > >
> > > > Thanks.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Chia
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: serusers-bounces at iptel.org
> [mailto:serusers-bounces at iptel.org] On
> > > > Behalf Of Jan Janak
> > > > Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 4:39 PM
> > > > To: Juan Carlos Castro y Castro
> > > > Cc: serusers at iptel.org
> > > > Subject: Re: [Serusers] SER losing SIP registrations
> > > >
> > > > On 22-06-2005 17:57, Juan Carlos Castro y Castro wrote:
> > > > > Our company has a call center implementation on a client with up
> to
> > > > > 100 support personnel using X-Lite version 1050 softphones
> running
> > > > > under Windows 98. Until a few days ago, the softphones were
> logged in
> > > > > directly on our PBXs. Now, they log onto a separate SER 0.8.14
> box
> > > > > and the PBXs forward calls to SER. That was needed to unify queue
> > > > > management.
> > > > >
> > > > > It works. But some softphones are being randomly kicked out of
> SER,
> > > > > it seems SER isn't receiving the refresh REGISTER messages from
> the
> > > > > softphones. The re-register timeout is set to 500 seconds on the
> > > > > softphones. There's a lot of "removing spare zombie" and "Binding
> > > > > '<user>','<url>' has expired" messages in /var/log/messages.
> > > >
> > > >   The message means that SER did not receive REGISTER re-fresh and
> is
> > > >   thus removing the contact from the user location database.
> > > >
> > > >   Pick one user agent that has this problem and install ngrep
> monitor
> > > > on the server to monitor all REGISTER messages from that user
> agent.
> > > > This way you could find out if the problem is in the user agent or
> > > > network (in this case you will not see REGISTER refresh messages on
> the
> > > > server) or in SER (in that case you will see them but SER probably
> > > > fails to process them).
> > > >
> > > >   Also make sure that SER is not configured to shorten the
> registration
> > > >   period. When registrar receives a REGISTER message, it is free to
> use
> > > >   shorter expires value for the Contac than what was suggested by
> the
> > > >   user agent in the request. In this case the real expires value of
> the
> > > >   contact will be in 200 OK and user agents are suppose to pick it
> up
> > > >   from there and update the refresh interval accordingly. This may
> not
> > > >   work in the case when Contact IP address is rewritten by the
> server
> > > >   for the purpose of NAT traversal. In this case the user agent
> will be
> > > >   unable to find its contact (because it has been rewritten) and
> will
> > > >   not update the refresh interval (resulting in expired
> registrations).
> > > >
> > > > > For now, we're instructing the client to increase the timeout to
> 10
> > > > > hours on the softphones in which the problem happens most often.
> I
> > > > > don't know if that's really the right thing to do, I think we
> should
> > > > > somehow make sure the re-registers are done in a timely fashion
> and
> > > > > retried, but I could not find ant SER configuration option
> related to
> > > > > that. What should I do?
> > > >
> > > >   You can configure the maximum allowed expires value in SER, if a
> user
> > > >   agent tries to REGISTER a contact with longer expires value than
> it
> > > >   will be automatically updated by registrar to the value of
> > > > max_expires parameter.
> > > >
> > > >   There is also min_expires parameter in registrar module but that
> one
> > > >   should not be used because the current implementation violates
> > > >   RFC3261.
> > > >
> > > >   If you are using any of the two parameter than it might be a good
> > > > idea to retry without them (to see if the problem persists).
> > > >
> > > >     Jan.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Serusers mailing list
> > Serusers at iptel.org
> > http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
>
> _______________________________________________
> Serusers mailing list
> Serusers at iptel.org
> http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers

More information about the sr-users mailing list