[SR-Users] Rtpproxy re-INVITE handling

Fri Aug 31 18:49:51 CEST 2012

Yes, 

The request (re-INVITE): 

Aug 30 22:38:59 sip
/usr/sbin/kamailio[25778]: ERROR: *** cfgtrace:
c=[/etc/kamailio/kamailio.cfg] l=471 a=25 n=rtpproxy_manage
Aug 30
22:38:59 sip rtpproxy[25671]: DBUG:handle_command: received command
"25778_11 U 1952045641-6076-15 at BA.FJ.B.CFC 184.170.249.3 32122
3ae1Dvgr5vmeg;1 199857477;1"
Aug 30 22:38:59 sip rtpproxy[25671]:
INFO:handle_command: adding strong flag to existing session,
new=1/0/0
Aug 30 22:38:59 sip rtpproxy[25671]: INFO:handle_command:
lookup on ports 55324/46010, session timer restarted
Aug 30 22:38:59 sip
rtpproxy[25671]: DBUG:doreply: sending reply "25778_11 46010
184.170.249.8#012" 

The reply: 

Aug 30 22:38:59 sip
/usr/sbin/kamailio[25778]: ERROR: *** cfgtrace:
c=[/etc/kamailio/kamailio.cfg] l=471 a=25 n=rtpproxy_manage
Aug 30
22:38:59 sip rtpproxy[25671]: DBUG:handle_command: received command
"25778_12 L 1952045641-6076-15 at BA.FJ.B.CFC 71.104.248.48 6016
3ae1Dvgr5vmeg;1"
Aug 30 22:38:59 sip rtpproxy[25671]:
INFO:handle_command: lookup request failed: session
1952045641-6076-15 at BA.FJ.B.CFC, tags 3ae1Dvgr5vmeg;1/NONE not found
Aug
30 22:38:59 sip rtpproxy[25671]: DBUG:doreply: sending reply "25778_12 0
184.170.249.8#012"
Aug 30 22:38:59 sip /usr/sbin/kamailio[25778]: ERROR:
rtpproxy [rtpproxy.c:2260]: incorrect port 0 in reply from rtp proxy 

I
was able to get it working correctly by reworking the config like the
3.1 branch by using rtpproxy_offer instead of force_rtp_proxy. When I
attempted to use rtpproxy_answer in the reply route, I was getting the
same lookup request failed error from rtpproxy. In the request and
reply, the tags change. Could this be the reason that the session lookup
is failing? If I use rtpproxy_offer in both the request and reply,
everything works correctly. Is there any consequence to doing this?

Thanks, 

Spencer 

On 31.08.2012 01:53, Daniel-Constantin Mierla
wrote: 

> Hello,
> 
> On 8/31/12 3:41 AM, Spencer Thomason wrote:
> 
>>
Hi Daniel, I can confirm that rtpproxy_manage is called. See:
http://pastebin.com/ZVXjK9ry [1] I'm seeing ERROR: rtpproxy
[rtpproxy.c:2260]: incorrect port 0 in reply from rtp proxy in the logs
when processing the 200OK in the re-INVITE. I've included a debug level
log from rtpproxy in the log as well.
> 
> this can happen because the
rtpproxy was not engaged for the request, 
> but only for the reply.
>

> As you say, the logs are for the 200OK, what about the ones for
request, 
> is rtpproxy called there?
> 
> Cheers,
> Daniel
> 
>> When
handling the re-INVITE there is: * Aug 30 22:38:59 sip
/usr/sbin/kamailio[25778]: ERROR: *** cfgtrace:
c=[/etc/kamailio/kamailio.cfg] l=471 a=25 n=rtpproxy_manage * Aug 30
22:38:59 sip rtpproxy[25671]: DBUG:handle_command: received command
"25778_11 U 1952045641-6076-15 at BA.FJ.B.CFC [14] 184.170.249.3 32122
3ae1Dvgr5vmeg;1 199857477;1" * Aug 30 22:38:59 sip rtpproxy[25671]:
INFO:handle_command: adding strong flag to existing session, new=1/0/0 *
Aug 30 22:38:59 sip rtpproxy[25671]: INFO:handle_command: lookup on
ports 55324/46010, session timer restarted * Aug 30 22:38:59 sip
rtpproxy[25671]: DBUG:doreply: sending reply "25778_11 46010
184.170.249.8#012" but the 200OK: * Aug 30 22:38:59 sip
/usr/sbin/kamailio[25778]: ERROR: *** cfgtrace:
c=[/etc/kamailio/kamailio.cfg] l=471 a=25 n=rtpproxy_manage * Aug 30
22:38:59 sip rtpproxy[25671]: DBUG:handle_command: received command
"25778_12 L 1952045641-6076-15 at BA.FJ.B.CFC [15] 71.104.248.48 6016
3ae1Dvgr5vmeg;1" * Aug 30 22:38:59 sip rtpproxy[25671]:
INFO:handle_command: lookup request failed: session
1952045641-6076-15 at BA.FJ.B.CFC [16], tags 3ae1Dvgr5vmeg;1/NONE not found
* Aug 30 22:38:59 sip rtpproxy[25671]: DBUG:doreply: sending reply
"25778_12 0 184.170.249.8#012" * Aug 30 22:38:59 sip
/usr/sbin/kamailio[25778]: ERROR: rtpproxy [rtpproxy.c:2260]: incorrect
port 0 in reply from rtp proxy I'm not familiar with the rtpproxy
commands to know why it cannot locate the session. Thanks for your
assistance, Spencer On Aug 30, 2012, at 11:59 AM, Daniel-Constantin
Mierla wrote: 
>> 
>>> Hello, I could not spot by quick eye checking
what could happen there, the best is to use the debugger module with
cfg_trace parameter set and check the execution trace to see what
actions of the configuration file are executed and be sure the rtpproxy
is called or not. You can post the execution trace here if you need
further help with it. Cheers, Daniel On 8/30/12 7:40 PM, Spencer
Thomason wrote: 
>>> 
>>>> Hi Daniel, Thanks for your help with this.
Here is a trace: http://pastebin.com/pXeFbwBz [8] I see the nat=yes
parameter added to the Route header. I've posted the script here:
http://pastebin.com/2qwHYHvj [9]Forgive my ignorance, I can't tell what
I'm doing wrong. Thanks! Spencer On Aug 30, 2012, at 12:51 AM,
Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote: 
>>>> 
>>>>> Hello, if your config it is
based on the default one, the Route header for within dialog requests is
marked by a parameter, nat=yes, that is used to decide whether to do
rtpproxy or not. So, if you have a custom config, check the default one
for the nat traversal handling part. Cheers, Daniel On 8/30/12 12:39 AM,
Spencer Thomason wrote: 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hello, I'm using Kamailio 3.2.4
for NAT traversal using rtpproxy_manage() in a largely stock script.
Everything works great until the far end (on a public ip) sends a t.38
re-INVITE. The 200OK from the NATed UAC then doesn't trigger rtpproxy
and the private IP in the sdp causes the fax to fail. Any help handling
these re-INVITEs would be greatly appreciated. I'm happy to post traces
if that helps describe the situation. The network topology looks like
this: NATed UAC -> Kamailio on a public IP -> UAS on a public IP Thanks
in advance, Spencer Connected by DROID on Verizon Wireless
_______________________________________________ SIP Express Router (SER)
and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list
sr-users at lists.sip-router.org [2]
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users [3]
>>>>>
-- Daniel-Constantin Mierla - http://www.asipto.com [4]
http://twitter.com/# [5]!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
[6] Kamailio Advanced Training, Berlin, Nov 5-8, 2012 -
http://asipto.com/u/kat [7]
>>> -- Daniel-Constantin Mierla -
http://www.asipto.com [10] http://twitter.com/# [11]!/miconda -
http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda [12] Kamailio Advanced Training,
Berlin, Nov 5-8, 2012 - http://asipto.com/u/kat [13]
>>
_______________________________________________ SIP Express Router (SER)
and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list
sr-users at lists.sip-router.org [17]
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users [18]

Links:
------
[1] http://pastebin.com/ZVXjK9ry
[2]
mailto:sr-users at lists.sip-router.org
[3]
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
[4]
http://www.asipto.com
[5] http://twitter.com/#
[6]
http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
[7] http://asipto.com/u/kat
[8]
http://pastebin.com/pXeFbwBz
[9] http://pastebin.com/2qwHYHvj
[10]
http://www.asipto.com
[11] http://twitter.com/#
[12]
http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
[13] http://asipto.com/u/kat
[14]
mailto:1952045641-6076-15 at BA.FJ.B.CFC
[15]
mailto:1952045641-6076-15 at BA.FJ.B.CFC
[16]
mailto:1952045641-6076-15 at BA.FJ.B.CFC
[17]
mailto:sr-users at lists.sip-router.org
[18]
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sip-router.org/pipermail/sr-users/attachments/20120831/876b3017/attachment.htm>