[Serusers] Claims of ser-0.9 RFC3261 Violation
Jan Janak
jan at iptel.org
Tue Mar 8 14:36:07 CET 2005
If you use fix_nated_register then ser would never rewrite Contact in
REGISTER and associated 200 OK. It would store the IP and port of the
NAT separately in the user location databasee.
Also if SER receives an INVITE for that contact, user location lookup
will rewrite the Request-URI with the original (unmodified) Contact
value, but the message will be sent to the IP and port of the NAT.
This is the correct behavior, because it allows user agents to match the
contact they registered in 200 OK comming from the server and yet SIP
messages will make it through NATs.
Jan.
On 02-03 13:38, Jain, Rajnish wrote:
> I'm new to this mailing list. This seems like an interesting question,
> so thought would put my 2 cents in:
>
> It seems like this is incorrect behavior on SER's part. SER is entitled
> to maintain the public IP addresses for the Contact in it's location
> service. But, the 200 OK that goes out on the wire to the end-point
> should contain the same Contact IP addresses that came in the REGISTER.
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From: serusers-bounces at iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces at lists.iptel.org] On
> Behalf Of Vitaly Nikolaev
> Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 1:25 PM
> To: 'Linda Xiao'; 'Java Rockx'
> Cc: serusers at lists.iptel.org
> Subject: RE: [Serusers] Claims of ser-0.9 RFC3261 Violation
>
>
>
> I do not agree... Contact should be same in the dialog...
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From: serusers-bounces at iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces at lists.iptel.org] On
> Behalf Of Linda Xiao
> Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 1:16 PM
> To: Java Rockx
> Cc: serusers at lists.iptel.org
> Subject: RE: [Serusers] Claims of ser-0.9 RFC3261 Violation
>
>
>
> You are not the only service provider who makes this kind of changes. I
> also encountered the same problem recently. But so far, this problem
> only happened on one UA which has the same sip engine as this
> engineer's. All other UAs in my hand can adapt this kinds of changes. So
> I personally think that instead of complaining SIP proxy violation, I
> would rather complain the interoperatibility of this sip engine.
>
>
>
> regards/Linda
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: serusers-bounces at iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces at lists.iptel.org] On
> Behalf Of Klaus Darilion
> Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 9:37 AM
> To: Java Rockx
> Cc: serusers at lists.iptel.org
> Subject: Re: [Serusers] Claims of ser-0.9 RFC3261 Violation
>
>
> 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:si
> p.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
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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