[SR-Users] Kamailio: 500 Server error occurred (19/SL).

[Max Doronin]

Hello Daniel,

I think your guess about failure_route is correct. Here is the related piece
of config. Actually I can not find any append_branch() call in config (which
is not originally developed by me).

failure_route[1] {
        if (t_was_cancelled()) {
                exit;
        }

        if (t_check_status("408|403|404|488|480|415|50[0-4]")) {
                if (next_gw()) {
                        t_on_failure("1");
                        route(6);
                }
                else
                {
                        route(6);
                }
        }
}

route[6] {
        if (!t_relay()) {
                sl_reply_error();
        }
        exit;
}

Cheers,
Max.

On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 3:37 PM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda at gmail.com
> wrote:

> Hello,
>
>
> On 7/13/11 5:51 PM, Max Doronin wrote:
>
>> Hello guys,
>>
>> I have strange behavior on my Kamailio-1.5.1-notls instance.
>>
>> I have LCR and TM modules enabled.For a particular destination I have
>> 4 routes to try. When I call to non-existing number, it tries
>> - route 1 (404 Not Found)
>> - route 2 (404 Not Found)
>> - route 3 (503 Service unavailable)
>>
>> And the problem is with the last 503.
>>
>> Kamailio ACKs it, immediately drops these 2 lines into syslog
>> Jul 13 04:14:47 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[**23572]:
>> ERROR:tm:t_forward_nonack: no branch for forwarding
>> Jul 13 04:14:47 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[**23572]: ERROR:tm:w_t_relay:
>> t_forward_nonack failed
>> And sends
>> SIP/2.0 500 Server error occurred (19/SL).
>> To the call originator.
>>
>> 30 microseconds later it sends
>> SIP/2.0 500 Service Unavailable.
>> to the originator again
>>
>> Latter 500 looks like the relayed original "503 Service unavailable".
>> I think so because the Reason header is the same:
>> Reason: SIP;cause=503;text="Service
>> Unavailable";icodetext="**NoCircuitAvailable";iintcode=**
>> 10034;isubsystem=3.
>>
>> Obviously call is terminated.
>>
>> I noticed that that last peer rewrites my Via headers like this:
>> Original:
>> ==
>> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 187.45.214.132;branch=**z9hG4bK3dac.fae9b793.2.
>> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
>> 192.168.2.33:5622;received=49.**49.59.23;branch=z9hG4bK-**
>> d8754z-a6ba40014f97fb7c-1---**d8754z-;rport=23832.
>> ==
>>
>> Rewritten
>> ==
>> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
>> 187.45.214.132;received=187.**45.214.132;branch=z9hG4bK3dac.**
>> fae9b793.2,SIP/2.0/UDP
>> 192.168.2.33:5622;received=49.**49.59.23;branch=z9hG4b
>> ==
>>
>> I tried to modify via1_matching parameter (1 ->  0) but no changes.
>>
>> My questions are:
>> - What can be the reason of that 500 with 19/SL
>> - Can kamailio properly handle this 1 line Via header?
>> - What can be the reason of that "t_forward_nonack: no branch for
>> forwarding"?
>>
>
> it seems you try to forward one more time, but there is no new branch where
> to send. I guess there is some issue in the failure_route, like calling
> t_relay() even if the new branch is not added. If you can paste it here, I
> can tell more clear if something is wrong there.
>
> Cheers,
> Daniel
>
> --
> Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- http://www.asipto.com
> Kamailio Advanced Training, Oct 10-13, Berlin: http://asipto.com/u/kat
> http://linkedin.com/in/miconda -- http://twitter.com/miconda
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sip-router.org/pipermail/sr-users/attachments/20110719/5f941ace/attachment.htm>