[SR-Users] kamailio 4.0.0 and websockets

[Daniel-Constantin Mierla]

Hello,

yes, conversion in kamailio is the same. The problem seems in twinkle, 
returning a negative reply when discovering a transport layer not 
supported by itself. However, the next hop to it is using UDP, so it 
should not be worried about what other hops are using between them.

Cheers,
Daniel

On 3/16/13 3:51 AM, Kelvin Chua wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> i have yet to finish my readings on the websocket standards but just 
> wanted to fire away with this question.
>
> is the behavior of protocol conversions between UDP and TCP the same 
> as if you include websockets?
>
> i have this twinkle issue (an old SIP stack)
>
> Received from: udp:192.168.122.100:5060 <http://192.168.122.100:5060>
> INVITE sip:kelvin at 192.168.122.1 <mailto:sip%3Akelvin at 192.168.122.1> 
> SIP/2.0
> Record-Route: <sip:192.168.122.100;r2=on;lr=on>
> Record-Route: <sip:192.168.122.100:8080;transport=ws;r2=on;lr=on>
> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 
> 192.168.122.100;branch=z9hG4bKed9e.8b1b2fa61a90a9031e17b393657df31b.0
> Via: SIP/2.0/WS 
> z173czhz21tk.invalid;rport=54765;received=192.168.122.1;branch=z9hG4bK3818745
> Max-Forwards: 16
> To: sip:kelvin at 192.168.122.100 <mailto:sip%3Akelvin at 192.168.122.100>
> From: sip:kelvin2 at 192.168.122.100 
> <mailto:sip%3Akelvin2 at 192.168.122.100>;tag=lmf8ofkxwq
> Call-ID: 69hbgnng64at9p07r2j4
> CSeq: 9406 INVITE
> Contact: 
> <sip:kelvin2 at z173czhz21tk.invalid;alias=192.168.122.1~54765~5;transport=ws;ob>
> Allow: INVITE, ACK, CANCEL, BYE, OPTIONS, MESSAGE, SUBSCRIBE
> Content-Type: application/sdp
> Supported: path, outbound, gruu
> User-Agent: JsSIP 0.2.1
> Content-Length: 2103
>
> v=0
> o=- 3148117784 2 IN IP4 127.0.0.1
> s=-
> t=0 0
> a=group:BUNDLE audio
> m=audio 55736 RTP/SAVPF 103 104 111 0 8 106 105 13 126
> c=IN IP4 192.168.122.1
> a=rtcp:55736 IN IP4 192.168.122.1
> a=candidate:2625852906 1 udp 2113937151
>
> <cut off>
>
> ---
>
> +++ 16-3-2013 10:41:25.584732 INFO SIP ::send_sip_udp
> Send to: udp:192.168.122.100:5060 <http://192.168.122.100:5060>
> SIP/2.0 100 Trying
> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 
> 192.168.122.100;branch=z9hG4bKed9e.8b1b2fa61a90a9031e17b393657df31b.0,SIP/2.0/WS 
> z173czhz21tk.invalid;received=192.168.122.1;rport=54765;branch=z9hG4bK3818745
> To: <sip:kelvin at 192.168.122.100 <mailto:sip%3Akelvin at 192.168.122.100>>
> From: <sip:kelvin2 at 192.168.122.100 
> <mailto:sip%3Akelvin2 at 192.168.122.100>>;tag=lmf8ofkxwq
> Call-ID: 69hbgnng64at9p07r2j4
> CSeq: 9406 INVITE
> Server: Twinkle/1.4.2
> Content-Length: 0
>
>
> ---
>
> +++ 16-3-2013 10:41:25.589231 INFO SIP ::send_sip_udp
> Send to: udp:192.168.122.100:5060 <http://192.168.122.100:5060>
> SIP/2.0 488 Not Acceptable Here
> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 
> 192.168.122.100;branch=z9hG4bKed9e.8b1b2fa61a90a9031e17b393657df31b.0,SIP/2.0/WS 
> z173czhz21tk.invalid;received=192.168.122.1;rport=54765;branch=z9hG4bK3818745
> To: <sip:kelvin at 192.168.122.100 
> <mailto:sip%3Akelvin at 192.168.122.100>>;tag=pxtmo
> From: <sip:kelvin2 at 192.168.122.100 
> <mailto:sip%3Akelvin2 at 192.168.122.100>>;tag=lmf8ofkxwq
> Call-ID: 69hbgnng64at9p07r2j4
> CSeq: 9406 INVITE
> Server: Twinkle/1.4.2
> Warning: 302 X340precise "Incompatible transport protocol"
> Content-Length: 0
>
> Kelvin Chua
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list
> sr-users at lists.sip-router.org
> http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users

-- 
Daniel-Constantin Mierla - http://www.asipto.com
http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
Kamailio World Conference, April 16-17, 2013, Berlin
  - http://conference.kamailio.com -

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sip-router.org/pipermail/sr-users/attachments/20130321/3b2abdbf/attachment-0001.htm>