[Serusers] Too Many Hops

[Greger V. Teigre]

Noel,
It would be interesting to get a description of the setup that caused this 
problem. Was that Asterisk as well? Same setup as Giovanni?  Dependent on 
auth/non-auth and how Asterisk has been set up with SER, we have seen 
different problems with signalling and proxying of RTP.  I know there was an 
lr vs. lr=on issue a while back, but somewhere we don't have RFC compliant 
behavior (all messages with routes should be loose routed).
g-)

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Noel Sharpe" <noels at radnetwork.co.uk>
To: "Giovanni Balasso" <giaso at yahoo.it>
Cc: <serusers at lists.iptel.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 10:14 AM
Subject: Re: [Serusers] Too Many Hops


> sounds to me like you have a looping problem in your script.  I had 
> something similar when using the example from OnSIP.org.  The loose_route 
> bit needed to be inside a condition:
>    if (uri!=myself){
>        if (loose_route()) {
>            route(1);      };          };
> xlog/ngrep is your friend here as you will be able to see which message is 
> being sent between the two servers.
>
> Noel
>
> Giovanni Balasso wrote:
>
>>Alle 09:47, mercoledì 02 novembre 2005, Matteo Piazza ha scritto:
>>
>>>I have Ser and asterisk on the same machine.
>>>When i try to call with a SIP phone registred on asterisk another sip
>>>phone also registred on asterisk through SER I receve this error message:
>>>Too many hops
>>>
>>
>>Too many hops is usually reached when there is no rule (or no way) to 
>>deliver sip message, adding some log(), or better xlog(), to your routing 
>>script could help you (and us) debugging and understanding what's wrong, 
>>and which method(s) fail.
>>
>>
>>
>>>        if (method == "INVITE") {
>>>          if (uri =~"^sip:0[0-9]*@*"){
>>>           log(1, "Check 1 succed Forwarding to Asterisk\n");
>>>           rewritehostport("192.168.9.97:5061");
>>>           t_relay();
>>>           break;
>>>          };
>>>         };
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I don't think this will solve your problem but in my experience I had 
>>better result with t_relay_to_udp("192.168.9.97","5061") than 
>>rewritehostport("192.168.9.97:5061").
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Serusers mailing list
> serusers at lists.iptel.org
> http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
>