Re: Re: [Serusers] Ser2.0 wrong behaviour of the sl_reply() function?

[tzieleniewski]

> At 16:35 25/04/2007, tzieleniewski wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >I am using SER rel 2_0_0 from CVS.
> >I encountered the following situation.
> >My scenario was the following:
> >
> >UA -> Application Serwer -> SER -> UA
> >
> >1. UA sent an INVITE message to the application server.
> >2. Application Server changed the Request URI and forwarded statelessly the INVITE message to SER.
> >3. Everything would be ok but SER replied to the Application server instead of the client. 
> 
> It can be that you meant to say something different, but that's standard 
> SIP behqviour that you send a reply to the most immediate upstream
> entity (AS in this case).
> 
> >Application server changed only the Request URI and nothing else.
> >Shouldn't SER sent the response according to the VIA header value??
> 
> You mean to say that the AS didn't add its own Via in there?
> 
Yes, the aim was to apply some external to SER modifications on the SIP massage and then return it back to SER. It was suppose to be something like invocation of some external logic outside the SIP routing procedures. 

> That appear kind of odd to me, I would begin fixing there.
> 
> But if you think there is possibly some
> value in it, there is I believe an option in SER to send back literally
> to what is printed in Via (as opposed to reversely sending to previous
> hop's transport address). It is normally turned off, becasue Via content
> is frequently useless (e.g., due to presence of NATs).
> 
Would be thanks full if you did:) 

tomasz

> Badly enough I don't recall the options' name and I'm offline right now
> to dig it out for you :-(
> 
> -jiri
> 
> >I kindly ask for Your help.
> >
> >Below is the ngrep:
> >192.168.0.112:5060 - this is application server
> >192.168.0.112:5061 - this is calling UA
> >
> >U 2007/04/25 16:17:05.652934 192.168.0.112:5060 -> 192.168.0.165:5060
> >INVITE sip:sen at voip.rd.touk.pl SIP/2.0.
> >Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.0.112:5061;rport=5061;branch=z9hG4bKhnrxbtgp;received=127.0.0.1.
> >Max-Forwards: 70.
> >To: <sip:sen at voip.rd.touk.pl>.
> >From: <sip:pz at voip.rd.touk.pl>;tag=jlegd.
> >Call-ID: pfnqwekjwtuxbfv at 192.168.0.112.
> >CSeq: 87 INVITE.
> >Contact: <sip:pz at 192.168.0.112:5061>.
> >Content-Type: application/sdp.
> >Allow: INVITE,ACK,BYE,CANCEL,OPTIONS,PRACK,REFER,NOTIFY,SUBSCRIBE,INFO.
> >Supported: 100rel.
> >User-Agent: Twinkle/0.9.
> >Content-Length: 304.
> >.
> >v=0.
> >o=pz 86411392 1733597180 IN IP4 192.168.0.112.
> >s=-.
> >c=IN IP4 192.168.0.112.
> >t=0 0.
> >m=audio 8000 RTP/AVP 98 97 8 0 3 101.
> >a=rtpmap:98 speex/16000.
> >a=rtpmap:97 speex/8000.
> >a=rtpmap:8 PCMA/8000.
> >a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000.
> >a=rtpmap:3 GSM/8000.
> >a=rtpmap:101 telephone-event/8000.
> >a=fmtp:101 0-15.
> >a=ptime:20.
> >
> >#
> >U 2007/04/25 16:17:05.699923 192.168.0.165:5060 -> 192.168.0.112:5060
> >SIP/2.0 407 Proxy Authentication Required.
> >Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.0.112:5061;rport=5060;branch=z9hG4bKhnrxbtgp;received=127.0.0.1;received=192.168.0.112.
> >To: <sip:sen at voip.rd.touk.pl>;tag=b27e1a1d33761e85846fc98f5f3a7e58.6a45.
> >From: <sip:pz at voip.rd.touk.pl>;tag=jlegd.
> >Call-ID: pfnqwekjwtuxbfv at 192.168.0.112.
> >CSeq: 87 INVITE.
> >Proxy-Authenticate: Digest realm="voip.rd.touk.pl", nonce="462f640d527dfc442d53379e1f0167c8a12a583d", qop="auth".
> >Server: Sip EXpress router (2.0.0-rc1 (x86_64/linux)).
> >Content-Length: 0.
> >Warning: 392 192.168.0.165:5060 "Noisy feedback tells:  pid=20441 req_src_ip=192.168.0.112 req_src_port=5060 in_uri=sip:sen at voip.rd.touk.pl out_uri=sip:sen at voip.rd.touk.pl via_cnt==1".
> >.
> >
> >Cheers Tomasz
> >_______________________________________________
> >Serusers mailing list
> >Serusers at lists.iptel.org
> >http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Jiri Kuthan            http://iptel.org/~jiri/
>