[Users] nathelper natping OPTIONS packets formated to not get reply?
Bogdan-Andrei Iancu
bogdan at voice-system.ro
Fri Feb 10 10:57:47 CET 2006
Hi Glen,
good job with the testing!! thanks a lot.
first, just to be sure, the missing username is in the TO hdr as
originally posted, right?
the idea is to find a compromised between how correct the OPTIONS should
be build and how efficient (in terms of speed and complexity).
In order to set the right username I will need to also get from the
usrloc the AOR of the user. this involves changes and penalties in the
usrloc interaction, thinks I'm trying to avoid.
do you think that placing a static dummy username (if missing) into the
TO will fix the problem?
regards,
bogdan
Glenn Dalgliesh wrote:
>Well sorry for the deal between post but wanted to find the time to run some
>tests. Below is a table showing results of some tests I did related to which
>clients response to options packets with and without username.
>Overwhelmingly, UA's don't seem to respond to OPTIONS packets without
>username. I have implemented a work around using AVP which is also below but
>I thought you might want to see this based on my findings.
>
>
>User_Agent No Username With Username
>====================================================================
>InstantVoice No Response OK
>HT488 1.0.2.5 OK OK
>Eyebeam 3004t No Response OK
>X-Lite release 1103m No Response OK
>X-Lite release 1105d No Response OK
>20a/050106 No Response OK
>Asterisk PBX OK OK
>Cisco ATA 186 v3.1.0 Not Found OK
>Cisco ATA 186 v3.2.0 Not Found OK
>FXS_GW (1asipfxs.107b) OK OK
>FXSO_GW No Response OK
>Grandstream BT100 1.0.6.7 OK OK
>Grandstream HT487 1.0.5.16 OK OK
>Grandstream HT487 1.0.5.18 No Response OK
>Grandstream HT487 1.0.6.7 No Response OK
>Grandstream HT488 1.0.2.16 No Response Not Implemented
>Grandstream HT496 1.0.0.8 No Response OK
>Grandstream HT496 1.0.2.16 No Response OK & No Such Call
>Linksys/PAP2-3.1.3(LS) No Response OK
>SIP201 (lp201sip.101) OK OK
>Sipura/SPA2000-2.0.13(g) Not Found OK
>Sipura/SPA2002-3.1.2(a) Not Found OK
>SJphone/1.50.271d (SJ Labs) No Response Method Not Allowed
>SJphone/1.60.289a (SJ Labs) No Response Method Not Allowed
>Welltech SipPhone V3.0 No Response OK
>Welltech SipPhone V5809 No Response OK
>
>
>I do the following before I save location to all registration packets. In
>order to add username to the received field.
>avp_subst("i:42","/(sip:)(.*)$/\1$fU@\2/");
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Bogdan-Andrei Iancu [mailto:bogdan at voice-system.ro]
>Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 7:00 AM
>To: Glenn Dalgliesh
>Cc: users at openser.org
>Subject: Re: [Users] nathelper natping OPTIONS packets formated to not get
>reply?
>
>Hi,
>
>indeed, if received uri is set, usrloc returns it received as contact
>uri. Again, that's so due simplicity reasons.
>On the other hand, an uri without username is a compliant SIP URI
>(according to RFC).
>I see no reasons for the TO to be rejected in this format.
>
>Regards,
>Bogdan
>
>
>Glenn Dalgliesh wrote:
>
>
>
>>Well actually the UA registers correctly and is reachable but natping seems
>>to built the To hdr from the received field of the location table which
>>
>>
>only
>
>
>>has source ip and port of the registered packet and not the username
>>
>>
>>Exmample of locations table entry:
>>Username domain contact
>>
>>2120051099 sip:2120051099 at 172.16.1.1:5060
>>received
>>sip:111.16.187.102:5060
>>
>>The resulting natping packet from this would be
>>
>>U 2006/01/20 16:27:10.410848 111.15.13.67:5060 -> 111.16.187.102:5060
>>
>>/OPTIONS sip:111.16.187.102:5060 SIP/2.0./
>>Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 111.15.13.67:5060;branch=0.
>>From: sip:ping at intervoz.com.br;tag=ec30e9b7.
>>To: sip:111.16.187.102:5060.
>>Call-ID: b3fdcfa3-71a82db5-445151 at 111.15.13.67.
>>CSeq: 1 OPTIONS.
>>Content-Length: 0.
>>
>>As you can see if appears to use the received field.
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Bogdan-Andrei Iancu [mailto:bogdan at voice-system.ro]
>>Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 3:44 PM
>>To: Glenn Dalgliesh
>>Cc: users at openser.org
>>Subject: Re: [Users] nathelper natping OPTIONS packets formated to not get
>>reply?
>>
>>Hi Glenn,
>>
>>nathelper, when building the OPTIONS ping, for To hdr, the registered
>>contact is used (due simplicity reasons). So the client seams to
>>register contacts without username. interesting is why isn't it accept
>>them back :).
>>
>>regards,
>>bogdan
>>
>>Glenn Dalgliesh wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>I was looking at packet traces of the OPTIONS packets generated by
>>>natping and it appears that at least in my implementation of OpenSer
>>>1.0.0 the "To: sip" line has no username which causes many UA's
>>>require in order to respond to the OPTIONS packet. I was wondering if
>>>this was intentional or if it would be possible to change this
>>>behavior or at least make it an configurable option. I think a lot
>>>could be done/determined based on the results of the reply; including
>>>determining if the packet is really reaching the UA. I realize that
>>>some UA's may not support this feature but I think more do than not.
>>>
>>>Just my observations/thoughts. Please give me reasons for this being a
>>>good or bad idea..
>>>
>>>*Current Packet:*
>>>
>>>U 2006/01/20 16:27:10.410848 111.15.13.67:5060 -> 111.16.187.102:5060
>>>
>>>/OPTIONS sip:111.16.187.102:5060 SIP/2.0./
>>>
>>>Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 111.15.13.67:5060;branch=0.
>>>
>>>From: sip:ping at intervoz.com.br;tag=ec30e9b7.
>>>
>>>To: sip:111.16.187.102:5060.
>>>
>>>Call-ID: b3fdcfa3-71a82db5-445151 at 111.15.13.67.
>>>
>>>CSeq: 1 OPTIONS.
>>>
>>>Content-Length: 0.
>>>
>>>*Suggested Packet:*
>>>
>>>U 2006/01/20 16:27:10.410848 111.15.13.67:5060 -> 111.16.187.102:5060
>>>
>>>/OPTIONS sip:*<username from location table>*@111.16.187.102:5060
>>>SIP/2.0./
>>>
>>>Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 111.15.13.67:5060;branch=0.
>>>
>>>From: sip:ping at intervoz.com.br;tag=ec30e9b7.
>>>
>>>To: sip:111.16.187.102:5060.
>>>
>>>Call-ID: b3fdcfa3-71a82db5-445151 at 111.15.13.67.
>>>
>>>CSeq: 1 OPTIONS.
>>>
>>>Content-Length: 0.
>>>
>>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>Users mailing list
>>>Users at openser.org
>>>http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Users mailing list
>>Users at openser.org
>>http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
More information about the sr-users
mailing list