[Serusers] Duplicate SIP messages?
Klaus Darilion
klaus.mailinglists at pernau.at
Mon Jun 27 22:54:38 CEST 2005
Maybe you are having multiple entries on the location or alias table,
which will add an additional branch to the transaction.
Check your aliases table and monitor also the loopback interace:
ngrep -d any port 5060
regards,
klaus
Tim Pushor wrote:
> Hi Iqbal,
>
> I'm sorry, I didn't notice that you replied to my request.
>
> I'm not 100% sure that the duplicate messages are related to the problem
> I am having, but I want to understand why ser is doing that. I took ser
> out of the loop (put the spa2000 on the Internet and disabled outbound
> proxy) and it worked fine.
>
> The first column is the timestamp, and it shows that the duplicate
> INVITE is about 1/100'th of a second after the initial INVITE.
>
> I'm really stuck here, and since I really don't know enough about ser,
> and am pretty green with voip, my next step would be trying to
> understand the source :( and seeing why the message would be send out
> twice :(
>
> Thanks,
> Tim
>
>
> Iqbal wrote:
>
>> Its Sunday night, so please double check anything I write :-)
>>
>> Although I cant be a 100% for sure it seems as if you SER is just sending
>> another INVITE this could be due to not receiving a reply in time, how
>> long b4 the reply comes from the itsp, I think default in ser is 120secs
>> or something.
>>
>> If this is not the case, any chance of seeing what the itsp is throwing
>> up when you send a request, might be something to do with the sdp,
>> although ser doesnt really do much when it comes to codec/sdp parameter
>> negotiation
>>
>> Iqbal
>>
>> On 6/26/2005, "Tim Pushor" <timp at crossthread.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Hi Friends,
>>>
>>> I am trying to learn ser and wrap my head around the routing logic. My
>>> first project is a simple outbound proxy to handle SIP/RTP from an
>>> SPA2000 behind a NAT. The ser server is on the public Internet, but I am
>>> having trouble making it work :( The spa2000 has been reset to default,
>>> and basically setup the same way that I'd set it up for FWD behind nat).
>>>
>>> I am using an example config from the Internet as as starting point
>>> (included below) and running on Ser 0.8.14 on FreeBSD (from a port). I
>>> am using the RTP proxy from ser cvs. This , It almost works, and
>>> capturing the traffic with ethereal looks to be mostly correct, but I am
>>> seeing duplicate sip messages (plz excuse formatting), which I think is
>>> causing me a big problem (even if it isn't, I'd like to know why this is
>>> happening).
>>>
>>> I didn't include frames 1 and 2, they are a SIP keepalive.
>>>
>>> 3 is the request from the spa2000 to the proxy
>>> 4 is the response from the proxy
>>> 5 is the request from the proxy to the itsp
>>> 6 is a dup!
>>> And then the problem compounds as the itsp tries to connect the same
>>> call twice.
>>>
>>> I would be very appreciative of any advice from you veterans ;-)
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Tim
>>>
>>> ** Doctored trace
>>>
>>> - 207.46.199.15 is the address of the NAT
>>> - 207.46.199.14 is the address of the Proxy running ser
>>> - 69.16.138.164 is the address of my itsp's SIP proxy
>>>
>>> 3 4.563455 207.46.199.15 207.46.199.14
>>> SIP/SDP Request: INVITE sip:6415551234 at my.itsp.com, with session
>>> description
>>> 4 4.564809 207.46.199.14 207.46.199.15
>>> SIP Status: 100 trying -- your call is important to us
>>> 5 4.566539 207.46.199.14 69.16.138.164 SIP/SDP
>>> Request: INVITE sip:6415551234 at my.itsp.com, with session description
>>> 6 4.578979 207.46.199.14 69.16.138.164 SIP/SDP
>>> Request: INVITE sip:6415551234 at my.itsp.com, with session description
>>> 7 4.589856 69.16.138.164 207.46.199.14 SIP
>>> Status: 100 Trying
>>> 8 4.602580 69.16.138.164 207.46.199.14 SIP
>>> Status: 407 Proxy Authorization Required
>>> 9 4.602733 207.46.199.14 69.16.138.164 SIP
>>> Request: ACK sip:6415551234 at my.itsp.com
>>> 10 4.602808 207.46.199.14 207.46.199.15
>>> SIP Status: 407 Proxy Authorization Required
>>> 11 4.611428 69.16.138.164 207.46.199.14 SIP
>>> Status: 407 Proxy Authorization Required
>>> 12 4.611574 207.46.199.14 69.16.138.164 SIP
>>> Request: ACK sip:6415551234 at my.itsp.com
>>> 13 4.613772 207.46.199.15 207.46.199.14
>>> SIP Request: ACK sip:6415551234 at my.itsp.com
>>> 14 4.622070 207.46.199.15 207.46.199.14
>>> SIP/SDP Request: INVITE sip:6415551234 at my.itsp.com, with session
>>> description
>>> 15 4.623428 207.46.199.14 207.46.199.15
>>> SIP Status: 100 trying -- your call is important to us
>>> 16 4.625164 207.46.199.14 69.16.138.164 SIP/SDP
>>> Request: INVITE sip:6415551234 at my.itsp.com, with session description
>>> 17 4.648612 69.16.138.164 207.46.199.14 SIP
>>> Status: 100 Trying
>>> 18 7.101641 69.16.138.164 207.46.199.14 SIP
>>> Status: 180 Ringing
>>> 19 7.101844 207.46.199.14 207.46.199.15
>>> SIP Status: 180 Ringing
>>> 20 7.601009 69.16.138.164 207.46.199.14 SIP
>>> Status: 180 Ringing
>>> 21 7.601206 207.46.199.14 207.46.199.15
>>> SIP Status: 180 Ringing
>>> 22 8.859386 69.16.138.164 207.46.199.14 SIP
>>> Status: 180 Ringing
>>> 23 8.859577 207.46.199.14 207.46.199.15
>>> SIP Status: 180 Ringing
>>> .....
>>> .....
>>>
>>> My config:
>>>
>>> # ----------- global configuration parameters ------------------------
>>>
>>> fork=no
>>> log_stderror=yes
>>> debug=7
>>>
>>> check_via=no # (cmd. line: -v)
>>> dns=no # (cmd. line: -r)
>>> rev_dns=no # (cmd. line: -R)
>>> port=5060
>>> children=1
>>> fifo="/tmp/ser_fifo"
>>>
>>> # ------------------ module loading ----------------------------------
>>>
>>> loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/sl.so"
>>> loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/tm.so"
>>> loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/rr.so"
>>> loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/maxfwd.so"
>>> loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/usrloc.so"
>>> loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/registrar.so"
>>> loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/textops.so"
>>>
>>> # !! Nathelper
>>> loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/nathelper.so"
>>>
>>> # ----------------- setting module-specific parameters ---------------
>>>
>>> # -- usrloc params --
>>>
>>> modparam("usrloc", "db_mode", 0)
>>>
>>> # -- rr params --
>>> # add value to ;lr param to make some broken UAs happy
>>> modparam("rr", "enable_full_lr", 1)
>>>
>>> # !! Nathelper
>>> modparam("registrar", "nat_flag", 6)
>>> modparam("nathelper", "natping_interval", 30) # Ping interval 30 s
>>> modparam("nathelper", "ping_nated_only", 1) # Ping only clients
>>> behind NAT
>>>
>>> # ------------------------- request routing logic -------------------
>>>
>>> # main routing logic
>>>
>>> route{
>>>
>>> # initial sanity checks -- messages with
>>> # max_forwards==0, or excessively long requests
>>> if (!mf_process_maxfwd_header("10")) {
>>> sl_send_reply("483","Too Many Hops");
>>> break;
>>> };
>>> if (msg:len >= max_len ) {
>>> sl_send_reply("513", "Message too big");
>>> break;
>>> };
>>>
>>> # !! Nathelper
>>> # Special handling for NATed clients; first, NAT test is
>>> # executed: it looks for via!=received and RFC1918 addresses
>>> # in Contact (may fail if line-folding is used); also,
>>> # the received test should, if completed, should check all
>>> # vias for rpesence of received
>>> if (nat_uac_test("3")) {
>>> # Allow RR-ed requests, as these may indicate that
>>> # a NAT-enabled proxy takes care of it; unless it is
>>> # a REGISTER
>>>
>>> if (method == "REGISTER" || ! search("^Record-Route:")) {
>>> log("LOG: Someone trying to register from private
>>> IP, rewriting\n");
>>>
>>> # This will work only for user agents that support
>>> symmetric
>>> # communication. We tested quite many of them and
>>> majority is
>>> # smart enough to be symmetric. In some phones it
>>> takes a configuration
>>> # option. With Cisco 7960, it is called
>>> NAT_Enable=Yes, with kphone it is
>>> # called "symmetric media" and "symmetric signalling".
>>>
>>> fix_nated_contact(); # Rewrite contact with source
>>> IP of signalling
>>> if (method == "INVITE") {
>>> fix_nated_sdp("1"); # Add direction=active to SDP
>>> };
>>> force_rport(); # Add rport parameter to topmost Via
>>> setflag(6); # Mark as NATed
>>> };
>>> };
>>>
>>> # we record-route all messages -- to make sure that
>>> # subsequent messages will go through our proxy; that's
>>> # particularly good if upstream and downstream entities
>>> # use different transport protocol
>>> if (!method=="REGISTER") record_route();
>>>
>>> # subsequent messages withing a dialog should take the
>>> # path determined by record-routing
>>> if (loose_route()) {
>>> # mark routing logic in request
>>> append_hf("P-hint: rr-enforced\r\n");
>>> route(1);
>>> break;
>>> };
>>>
>>> if (!uri==myself) {
>>> # mark routing logic in request
>>> append_hf("P-hint: outbound\r\n");
>>> route(1);
>>> break;
>>> };
>>>
>>> # if the request is for other domain use UsrLoc
>>> # (in case, it does not work, use the following command
>>> # with proper names and addresses in it)
>>> if (uri==myself) {
>>>
>>> if (method=="REGISTER") {
>>>
>>> save("location");
>>> break;
>>> };
>>>
>>> lookup("aliases");
>>> if (!uri==myself) {
>>> append_hf("P-hint: outbound alias\r\n");
>>> route(1);
>>> break;
>>> };
>>>
>>> # native SIP destinations are handled using our USRLOC DB
>>> if (!lookup("location")) {
>>> sl_send_reply("404", "Not Found");
>>> break;
>>> };
>>> };
>>> append_hf("P-hint: usrloc applied\r\n");
>>> route(1);
>>> }
>>>
>>> route[1]
>>> {
>>> # !! Nathelper
>>> if (uri=~"[@:](192\.168\.|10\.|172\.(1[6-9]|2[0-9]|3[0-1])\.)"
>>> && !search("^Route:")){
>>> sl_send_reply("479", "We don't forward to private IP
>>> addresses");
>>> break;
>>> };
>>>
>>> # if client or server know to be behind a NAT, enable relay
>>> if (isflagset(6)) {
>>> force_rtp_proxy();
>>> };
>>>
>>> # NAT processing of replies; apply to all transactions (for
>>> example,
>>> # re-INVITEs from public to private UA are hard to identify as
>>> # NATed at the moment of request processing); look at replies
>>> t_on_reply("1");
>>>
>>> # send it out now; use stateful forwarding as it works reliably
>>> # even for UDP2TCP
>>> if (!t_relay()) {
>>> sl_reply_error();
>>> };
>>> }
>>>
>>> # !! Nathelper
>>> onreply_route[1] {
>>> # NATed transaction ?
>>> if (isflagset(6) && status =~ "(183)|2[0-9][0-9]") {
>>> fix_nated_contact();
>>> if (!( search ("^Content-Length:\ 0") )) {
>>> force_rtp_proxy();
>>> }
>>> # otherwise, is it a transaction behind a NAT and we did not
>>> # know at time of request processing ? (RFC1918 contacts)
>>> } else if (nat_uac_test("1")) {
>>> fix_nated_contact();
>>> };
>>> }
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Serusers mailing list
>>> serusers at lists.iptel.org
>>> http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Serusers mailing list
> serusers at lists.iptel.org
> http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
>
>
More information about the sr-users
mailing list