[SR-Users] REGISTER failure_route 401 problem

Marc Soda msoda at coredial.com
Mon Mar 3 18:08:02 CET 2014


I resolved the issue, but I not quite sure why is worked.  Rather than
sending the REGISTER with t_reply(), I changed it to call route(RELAY)
which does this:

route[RELAY] {
  xlog("L_NOTICE","route[RELAY] ($rm)\n");

  if (is_method("INVITE|BYE|SUBSCRIBE|UPDATE")) {
    if (!t_is_set("branch_route")) t_on_branch("MANAGE_BRANCH");
  }

  if (is_method("INVITE|SUBSCRIBE|UPDATE")) {
    if (!t_is_set("onreply_route")) t_on_reply("MANAGE_REPLY");
  }

  if (is_method("INVITE")) {
    if (!t_is_set("failure_route")) t_on_failure("MANAGE_FAILURE");
  }

  xlog("L_NOTICE","t_relay()'ing ($rm)\n");

  if (!t_relay()) {
    sl_reply_error();
  }
  exit;
}

I thought that maybe the issue was that I was getting a 100 TRYING right
before the 401, and maybe I needed to setup a reply route as well.
 However, as you can see above, MANAGE_REPLY isn't set for REGISTERs.  Why
did this fix the problem?

Marc

On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 11:52 AM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda at gmail.com
> wrote:

>  Are you sure you have set t_on_failure() for the respective transaction?
>
> Cheers,
> Daniel
>
>
> On 03/03/14 17:44, Marc Soda wrote:
>
> So I've found out that NAT has nothing to do with it.  The bit about
> things working when the NAT device is removed was wrong.
>
>  So my question becomes:  Why would Kamailio ignore a 401 rather sending
> it to a failure route?
>
>  Thanks in advance,
> Marc
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 9:10 AM, Marc Soda <msoda at coredial.com> wrote:
>
>> I forget to mention, the nat device is in front of the Kamailio servers,
>> not the endpoints.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 6:22 PM, Marc Soda <msoda at coredial.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I have a Kamailio server setup which is registers to a back end server
>>> on behalf of endpoints.  The endpoints can register to Kamailio but
>>> Kamailio is failing to register to the server when I put a NAT device in
>>> front of it.  Without the NAT device it works fine.
>>>
>>>  The problem is the 401 that comes back seems to be ignored by
>>> Kamailio.  I have a failure route setup to auth, but it is never hit.  I
>>> see the 401 in onrely_route, but not the failure_route.  I'm assuming it's
>>> a NAT issue because removing the device fixes the issue.
>>>
>>>  Anyone have any ideas?
>>>
>>>  The 401 being ignored:
>>>
>>>  SIP/2.0 401 Unauthorized
>>>  Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
>>> 10.0.10.11;branch=z9hG4bKe5d6.178378f7.0;received=198.XXX.XXX.XXX
>>> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 127.0.0.1:12354
>>> ;rport=6545;received=198.XXX.YYY.YYY;branch=z9hG4bK-1879-1-3
>>> From: <sip:sip7878_spqa at 64.YYY.YYY.YYY>;tag=1
>>> To: <sip:sip7878_spqa at 64.YYY.YYY.YYY>;tag=as00e32130
>>> Call-ID: 1-1879 at 127.0.0.1
>>> CSeq: 2 REGISTER
>>> User-Agent: CoreDialPBX
>>> Allow: INVITE, ACK, CANCEL, OPTIONS, BYE, REFER, SUBSCRIBE, NOTIFY, INFO
>>>  Supported: replaces
>>> WWW-Authenticate: Digest algorithm=MD5, realm="fe-c7c5-9o.domain.com",
>>> nonce="151e4f60"
>>> Content-Length: 0
>>>
>>>  Thanks,
>>> Marc
>>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 Mierla - http://www.asipto.comhttp://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140303/c4e0089c/attachment.html>


More information about the sr-users mailing list