[SR-Users] gruu within dialog
samuel
samu60 at gmail.com
Wed Aug 27 09:12:25 CEST 2014
Here it goes, apologies for the length:
The registration process is done via TLS and therefore I "can not" post the
trace. However, the resulting data is the following:
AOR:: sam at domain.com
Contact:: sip:83652074 at M.N.O.P:34120;transport=tls Q=
Expires:: 569
Callid:: iUcVvmbsda9Yu0DGUm4exTHiZYIqwgtZ
Cseq:: 2
User-agent:: Blink 0.9.1 (Linux)
Received:: sip:M.N.O.P:39961;transport=TLS
State:: CS_DIRTY
Flags:: 0
Cflag:: 64
Socket:: tls:X.Y.Z.W:5061
Methods:: 4294967295
Ruid:: uloc-53fc870d-1097-4
Instance:: <urn:uuid:d63b1c4f-d7dc-4f4e-87f1-948123266dc0>
Reg-Id:: 0
Last-Keepalive:: 1409121941
Last-Modified:: 1409121941
The call trace is the following (Trying and Ringing messages removed for
simplicity):
U A.B.C.D:5060 -> X.Y.Z.W:5060
INVITE sip:999666222 at pstn.domain.com SIP/2.0..Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
A.B.C.D:5060;branch=z9hG4bK222c6640..Max-Forwards: 70..From: "111222333"
<sip:111222333 at A.B.C.D>;tag=as1a7b4c7d..To:
<sip:999666222 at pstn.domain.com>..Contact:
<sip:111222333 at A.B.C.D:5060>..Call-ID: 59f5
579c01f8039243ec830d317df994 at A.B.C.D:5060..CSeq: 102 INVITE..User-Agent:
IPXAdam..Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 06:45:54 GMT..Allow: INVITE, ACK, CANCEL,
OPTIONS, BYE, REFER, SUBSCRIBE, NOTIFY, INFO, PUBLISH..Supported: replaces,
timer..Content-Type: application/sdp..Content-Length: 311....v=0..o=root
936120945 936120945 IN IP4 A.B.C.D..s=Asterisk PBX 11.6-cert2..c=IN IP4
A.B.C.D..t=0 0..m=audio 12018 RTP/AVP 8 3 0 101..a=rtpmap:8
PCMA/8000..a=rtpmap:3 GSM/8000..a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000..a=rtpmap:101
telephone-event/8000..a=fmtp:101 0-16..a=silenceSupp:off - - -
-..a=ptime:20..a=sendrecv..
U X.Y.Z.W:5060 -> A.B.C.D:5060
SIP/2.0 200 OK..Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
A.B.C.D:5060;rport=5060;branch=z9hG4bK222c6640..Record-Route:
<sip:X.Y.Z.W:5061;transport=tls;lr;r2=on;fdrrm=82.63f;nat=yes>..Record-Route:
<sip:X.Y.Z.W;lr;r2=on;fdrrm=82.63f;nat=yes>..Call-ID:
59f5579c01f8039243ec830d317df994 at A.B.C.D:5060..From: "111222333"
<sip:111222333 at A.B.C.D>;tag=as1a7b4c7d..To:
<sip:999666222 at pstn.domain.com>;tag=GcH-CAWXaNVzm0W314zxJF518oM-Okco..CSeq:
102 INVITE..Server: Blink 0.9.1 (Linux)..Allow: SUBSCRIBE, NOTIFY, PRACK,
INVITE, ACK, BYE, CANCEL, UPDATE, MESSAGE, REFER..Contact:
<sip:sam at M.N.O.P:39961;transport=tls;gr=urn:uuid:d63b1c4f-d7dc-4f4e-87f1-948123266dc0>..Supported:
100rel, replaces, norefersub, gruu..Content-Type:
application/sdp..Content-Length: 236....v=0..o=- 3618110757 3618110758 IN
IP4 M.N.O.P..s=Blink 0.9.1 (Linux)..t=0 0..m=audio 50002 RTP/AVP 8
101..c=IN IP4 M.N.O.P..a=
rtcp:50003..a=rtpmap:8 PCMA/8000..a=rtpmap:101
telephone-event/8000..a=fmtp:101 0-15..a=sendrecv..
U A.B.C.D:5060 -> X.Y.Z.W:5060
ACK sip:sam at M.N.O.P:39961;transport=tls;gr=urn:uuid:d63b1c4f-d7dc-4f4e-87f1-948123266dc0
SIP/2.0..Via: SIP/2.0/UDP A.B.C.D:5060;branch=z9hG4bK22a00025..Route:
<sip:X.Y.Z.W;lr;r2=on;fdrrm=82.63f;nat=yes>,<sip:X.Y.Z.W:5061;transport=tls;lr;r2=on;fdrrm=82.63f;nat=yes>..Max-Forwards:
70..
From: "111222333" <sip:111222333 at A.B.C.D>;tag=as1a7b4c7d..To: <
sip:999666222 at pstn.domain.com>;tag=GcH-CAWXaNVzm0W314zxJF518oM-Okco..Contact:
<sip:111222333 at A.B.C.D:5060>..Call-ID:
59f5579c01f8039243ec830d317df994 at A.B.C.D:5060..CSeq: 102 ACK..User-Agent:
IPXAdam..Content-Length:0....
What I was refering to is that in the logs the lookup process is using
sip:sam at M.N.O.P, which is not found because what exists in the registrar
database is sam at domain.com. In the Contact header of the 200 OK the local
IP is used instead of the FQDN form. I might have been misleaded by the
logs or the gruu lookup process, but in the following lines of the code
(you were right about the lines and verion):
The first log ouput comes from the following lines of lookup.c:
120 if(puri.gr_val.len>0) {
121 /* pub-gruu */
122 inst = puri.gr_val;
123 LM_DBG("looking up pub gruu [%.*s]\n",
inst.len, inst.s);
But afterwards, there are these lines, with the return -1 statement:
154 /* aor or pub-gruu lookup */
155 ul.lock_udomain(_d, &aor);
156 res = ul.get_urecord(_d, &aor, &r);
157 if (res > 0) {
158 LM_DBG("'%.*s' Not found in usrloc\n",
aor.len, ZSW(aor.s));
159 ul.unlock_udomain(_d, &aor);
160 return -1;
161 }
162
This is the point where I would need expertise help, because it looks like
it uses the "short" AoR (without URI gruu parameters) according to the logs
and a -1 is returned. Afterwards there are the lines used to lookup the pub
and temp gruu but are not, as far as I understand, used because of the
return -1.
What is my mistake in the above assumption?
Thanks a lot for the amazing fast reply.
Samuel.
On 26 August 2014 18:22, Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> can you send a trace that includes the registration as well as the call?
>
> The pub-gruu is using the AoR, iirc.
>
> Also, the line you refer to is not matching anymore with latest 4.1.x --
> paste the code around it to locate it properly.
>
> Cheers,
> Daniel
>
>
> On 26/08/14 18:05, samuel wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I'm having some issues treating requests within dialogs with gruu enabled
> with kamailio 4.1.2.
>
> I've got the "standard" configuration of WITHIN route with the adition of
> the next lines:
>
> if(is_gruu()){
> route(LOCATION);
> };
>
> before the the RELAY route call in the loose_route section.
>
> The "problem" is that the ACK with a pub-gruu on the Req-URI is not
> properly lookup. In the logs I can see the following statements:
> 2(4232) DEBUG: registrar [lookup.c:123]: lookup(): looking up pub gruu
> [urn:uuid:d63b1c4f-d7dc-4f4e-87f1-948123266dc0]
> 2(4232) DEBUG: registrar [lookup.c:158]: lookup(): 'sam at A.B.C.D' Not
> found in usrloc
>
> Where A.B.C.D is the local IP of the UA.
>
> Looking at the code, this last line looks like is looking for the
> "standard" URI (username at domain) instead of using the pub gruu. Am I
> right with this assumption or am I missing something from the code?
> As far as I could look, it looks like there's an exit -1 statement in the
> line 158 of lookup.c which disables the following gruu treatment.
>
> Since the username with IP is not registered, this ACK is lost and the
> sesion is not stablished (lost ACK).
>
> Can anyone provide some hints why is this failing?
>
> Thanks a lot in advance!
> Samuel.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing listsr-users at lists.sip-router.orghttp://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
>
>
> --
> Daniel-Constantin Mierlahttp://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
> Next Kamailio Advanced Trainings 2014 - http://www.asipto.com
> Sep 22-25, Berlin, Germany ::: Oct 15-17, San Francisco, USA
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sip-router.org/pipermail/sr-users/attachments/20140827/902f7735/attachment.html>
More information about the sr-users
mailing list