[Serusers] Claims of ser-0.9 RFC3261 Violation

Wed Mar 2 18:37:01 CET 2005

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 at 192.168.0.180;user=phone>;expires=200
> 
> Packet 6 200OK:
> Contact: <sip:3212514276 at 65.77.37.2:36323;user=phone>;expires=200,
> <sip:3212514276 at 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 at 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 at iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces at lists.iptel.org] On
>>Behalf Of Java Rockx
>>Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 11:17 AM
>>To: serusers at 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 at sip.mycompany.com:5060>
>>From: Accxx <sip:1000 at sip.mycompany.com:5060>;tag=1eb7db0b344ac92
>>Call-ID: bd4da0ebfe98297597243a92b1b0f868 at 192.168.0.180
>>CSeq: 392547129 REGISTER
>>Contact: Accxx <sip:1000 at 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 at sip.mycompany.com:5060>
>>From: Accxx <sip:1000 at sip.mycompany.com:5060>;tag=1eb7db0b344ac92
>>Call-ID: bd4da0ebfe98297597243a92b1b0f868 at 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 at sip.mycompany.com:5060>;tag=bf952ed189d8425c881b09485aa0b6f1.bdad
>>From: Accxx <sip:1000 at sip.mycompany.com:5060>;tag=1eb7db0b344ac92
>>Call-ID: bd4da0ebfe98297597243a92b1b0f868 at 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 at sip.mycompany.com:5060>
>>From: Accxx <sip:1000 at sip.mycompany.com:5060>;tag=1eb7db0b344ac92
>>Call-ID: bd4da0ebfe98297597243a92b1b0f868 at 192.168.0.180
>>CSeq: 392547130 REGISTER
>>Contact: Accxx <sip:1000 at 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 at sip.mycompany.com:5060>
>>From: Accxx <sip:1000 at sip.mycompany.com:5060>;tag=1eb7db0b344ac92
>>Call-ID: bd4da0ebfe98297597243a92b1b0f868 at 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 at sip.mycompany.com:5060>;tag=bf952ed189d8425c881b09485aa0b6f1.5e63
>>From: Accxx <sip:1000 at sip.mycompany.com:5060>;tag=1eb7db0b344ac92
>>Call-ID: bd4da0ebfe98297597243a92b1b0f868 at 192.168.0.180
>>CSeq: 392547130 REGISTER
>>Contact: <sip:1000 at 65.77.37.2:36323;user=phone>;expires=200,
>><sip:1000 at 65.77.37.2:36235;user=phone>;expires=3
>>Content-Length: 0
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>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
> 
> 