[Users] nathelper natping OPTIONS packets formated to not get reply?

[Glenn Dalgliesh]

Ok, I tested with standard natping with the received field with the default
format of sip:<ip address>:<port> and allow though some clients respond
differently to OPTIONS packet without username, in all cases I tested they
did respond. 

Unless you have other info I think we can leave this as is... 

Thanks for the help 
 
User_Agent	    		No Username			With
Username	   
=============== 		=======================	===================

InstantVoice			Not Found		OK	   
eyeBeam 3004t 			OK			OK	   
X-Lite release 1103m		OK			OK	   
20a/050106				OK			OK	   
Asterisk PBX			OK			OK	   
Axon 1.06				Not Implemented	Not Implemented	   
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				OK			OK	   
Grandstream BT100 1.0.6.7	OK			OK	   
Grandstream HT386 1.0.2.2	OK			OK	   
Grandstream HT487 1.0.5.16	OK			OK	   
Grandstream HT487 1.0.5.18	OK			OK	   
Grandstream HT487 1.0.6.7	OK			OK	   
Grandstream HT496 1.0.0.8	OK			OK	   
Grandstream HT496 1.0.2.16	OK & No Such Call	OK & No Such Call

Linksys/PAP2-2.0.10(LSc)	Not Found		OK	   
Linksys/PAP2-2.0.12(LS)		Not Found		OK	   
Linksys/PAP2-3.1.3(LS)		Not Found		OK	   
Sipura/SPA2000-2.0.13(g)	Not Found		OK	   
Sipura/SPA2002-3.1.2(a)		Not Found		OK	   
Sipura/SPA2000-3.1.5		Not Found		OK	   
SJphone/1.50.271d (SJ Labs)	Method Not Allowed	OK	   
SJphone/1.60.289a (SJ Labs)	Method Not Allowed	OK	   
Welltech SipPhone V3.0	OK	OK	   
Welltech SipPhone V5809	OK	OK	 



-----Original Message-----
From: Bogdan-Andrei Iancu [mailto:bogdan at voice-system.ro] 
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 11:19 AM
To: Glenn Dalgliesh
Cc: users at openser.org
Subject: Re: [Users] nathelper natping OPTIONS packets formated to not get
reply?

Hi Glenn,

no problem :) just keep me up to date if indeed the lack/presence of 
username in the TO hdr makes any difference. As we are close to make a 
new release on 1.0.x branch, it will be a nice fix to have .

regards,
bogdan

Glenn Dalgliesh wrote:

>Well I am feeling a little embarrassed at this point but it seems that my
>data may not have been exactly correct with regard to natpings not working
>without username in the TO field of OPTIONS packets. 
>
>First my original test scenario was to ngrep for OPTIONS packets generated
>from OpenSer and see if I was getting response without Username in the TO
>field. Then I would send an OPTIONS using sipsak thru openser and see if I
>got a reply. Based on this test it appeared that it was the lack of
Username
>in the TO field. But then after recording results with my work round in
>place which rewrote the received field. I found that I was still not
getting
>consistent results on replies to OPTIONS packets this lead me to start
>looking to see if the OPTIONS packets where ever reaching the dest...
>It turns out that the OPTIONS packets were not reaching the dest and it
>seems that the reason was that the Cisco router btw OPENSER and the
Internet
>was dropping a very high percentage of out bound packets under bursty
>situations such as hundreds of OPTIONS packets being sent to it at once. I
>have resolved this issues and now I am getting consistant results from the
>natping OPTIONS packets. 
>
>I will follow up with one more test which is to remove my work around
>related to the received field and retest the results. However, I will have
>to wait until I can test this after hours inorder to make this change. 
>
>Thanks and sorry for the bad data but as you can see it wasn't do to lack
of
>thought :)
>
>
>FYI: your patch did seem to added the natping FROM field to the TO field
>after I retest we can figure out if that is really necessary.
>
>  
>