[Users] in dialog request when openser listens on multiple ports

Bogdan-Andrei Iancu bogdan at voice-system.ro
Fri Nov 11 11:22:20 CET 2005


Hi Klaus,

I will have a look on this, but looks to be a problem in RR module - 
socket selection. This problem was fixed before the release, but seams 
that only for "after loose router" case and not also for "after strict 
router" case.
See  http://openser.org/pipermail/devel/2005-October/000774.html.

can you switch the CISCO to loose route? just to see if works....

in the mean while, please submit a bug report on the tracker.

regards,
bogdan

Klaus Darilion wrote:

> Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote:
>
>> Hi Klaus,
>>
>> the change of ports on INVITE time should be reflected in double 
>> record routing  (with both ports) in order to ensure that the 
>> sequential request will follow the same port path.  So, the question 
>> is, can you confirm the double RR in the outgoing INVITE from openser?
>
>
> Yes, double RR works fine. As you see in the BYE:
> BYE sip:83.136.32.83:5060;r2=on;ftag=a613b273;nat=yes;lr=on SIP/2.0.
> Route: <sip:83.136.32.83:6060;r2=on;ftag=a613b273;nat=yes;lr=on>, 
> <sip:klaus at 84.20.167.143:7404>.
>
> both RR are present (Cisco is a strcit router, thus one RR is int eh 
> request URI, the second one is in the Route header).
>
> Should openser change the sending socket according to the second Route 
> URI? I've also tried with a loose_router as callee and it again does 
> not work.
>
> klaus
>
>>
>> regards,
>> bogdan
>>
>> Klaus Darilion wrote:
>>
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> I've configure openser to listen also on port udp:6060. The INVITE 
>>> comes in to 6060, forwarded to other client on port 5060. Responses 
>>> and ACK will be handled correctly - on call leg uses port 6060, the 
>>> other call leg 5050.
>>>
>>> If now the callee sends a BYE (Cisco, strict router) the BYE will be 
>>> forwarded from port 5060 instead of 6060. I didn't find a problem in 
>>> the BYE request sent to the openser. Is openser behaving wrong here? 
>>> Or do I have to configure special routing for this scenario?
>>>
>>> thanks
>>> klaus
>>>
>>> BYE from callee (5060) to proxy
>>>
>>> U 2005/11/09 16:47:48.254756 83.136.33.19:5060 -> 83.136.32.83:5060
>>> BYE sip:83.136.32.83:5060;r2=on;ftag=a613b273;nat=yes;lr=on SIP/2.0.
>>> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 83.136.33.19:5060;branch=z9hG4bK3dc73e84.
>>> From: <sip:01505641636 at enum.at>;tag=000dedfb04cc011e597bda33-277ea073.
>>> To: klaus enum.at<sip:klaus at enum.at>;tag=a613b273.
>>> Call-ID: 7f49f21ed451bb7a.
>>> Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 15:47:47 GMT.
>>> CSeq: 101 BYE.
>>> User-Agent: CSCO/6.
>>> Content-Length: 0.
>>> RTP-RxStat: Dur=??,Pkt=??,Oct=??,LatePkt=??,LostPkt=??,AvgJit=??.
>>> RTP-TxStat: Dur=??,Pkt=??,Oct=??.
>>> Route: <sip:83.136.32.83:6060;r2=on;ftag=a613b273;nat=yes;lr=on>, 
>>> <sip:klaus at 84.20.167.143:7404>.
>>> .
>>>
>>> BYE from proxy to caller: is sent from 5060 althouth it should be 
>>> sent from 6060.
>>>
>>> #
>>> U 2005/11/09 16:47:48.264940 83.136.32.83:5060 -> 84.20.167.143:7404
>>> BYE sip:klaus at 84.20.167.143:7404 SIP/2.0.
>>> Max-Forwards: 10.
>>> Record-Route: 
>>> <sip:83.136.32.83;ftag=000dedfb04cc011e597bda33-277ea073;nat=yes;lr=on>. 
>>>
>>> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 83.136.32.83;branch=z9hG4bKaf5b.fbc8b274.0.
>>> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 83.136.33.19:5060;branch=z9hG4bK3dc73e84.
>>> From: <sip:01505641636 at enum.at>;tag=000dedfb04cc011e597bda33-277ea073.
>>> To: klaus enum.at<sip:klaus at enum.at>;tag=a613b273.
>>> Call-ID: 7f49f21ed451bb7a.
>>> Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 15:47:47 GMT.
>>> CSeq: 101 BYE.
>>> User-Agent: CSCO/6.
>>> Content-Length: 0.
>>> RTP-RxStat: Dur=??,Pkt=??,Oct=??,LatePkt=??,LostPkt=??,AvgJit=??.
>>> RTP-TxStat: Dur=??,Pkt=??,Oct=??.
>>> .
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Users mailing list
>>> Users at openser.org
>>> http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>>>
>>
>>
>
>





More information about the sr-users mailing list