[SR-Users] dlg_bridge
huseyin kalyoncu
hkalyoncu at gmail.com
Wed Apr 27 17:16:34 CEST 2016
Hello Daniel
I did some more tests and my previous statement is wrong.
Actually it do call set_contact_alias on 200 reply for INVITEs
but somehow it has no change.
I really missing something here.
On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 3:35 PM, huseyin kalyoncu <hkalyoncu at gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hello Daniel
>
> You are right. 200OK messages are also with private IPs.
> I think the problem is that
> since I call dlg_bridge with Kamailio's own IP
> It sends INVITE messages to itself first then it routes INVITE msg to user
> location.
> Because of this i see two record routes in the INTIVE headers and 200
> reply headers.
>
> if (is_reply()) {
> if(isbflagset(FLB_NATB)) {
> if(is_first_hop())
> set_contact_alias();
> }
> }
>
> But according to this code in NATMANAGE block, it only set contact if it
> is first hope.
> Since these messages have two record routes, this code block does not
> modify contact field
> Am I right? or Am I missing something else?
>
> Thanks
> Huseyin
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 12:50 PM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla <
> miconda at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> dlg_bridge is not using the location table at all, because it has to use
>> the contact from 200ok of INVITE.
>>
>> Have you used set_contact_alias() for natted 200ok received for INVITE?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Daniel
>>
>> On 27/04/16 11:15, huseyin kalyoncu wrote:
>>
>> Hello Daniel
>>
>> This is the sample output from our location table;
>>
>> kamailio=# select username,contact,received,user_agent from location
>> where username='5678*0012';
>> username | contact | received |
>> user_agent
>>
>> -----------+---------------------------------+-----------------------+---------------------
>> 5678*0012 | sip:5678*0012 at 192.168.1.21:5090 |
>> sip:DEVICE_PUBLIC_ADDRESS:5090 | Cisco/SPA504G-7.6.1
>> (1 row)
>>
>>
>> After calling dlg_bridge Kamailio firing INVITE and rings the device.
>> After answering on this device Kamailio firing REFER message.
>> But as you can see from ngrep output below, Kamailio is trying to send
>> this message to address in the contact field which is a private IP.
>>
>> U 2016/04/27 10:58:25.745935 KAMAILIO_PUBLIC_ADDRESS:5090 ->
>> 192.168.1.21:5090
>> REFER sip:5678*0012 at 192.168.1.21:5090 SIP/2.0.
>> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
>> KAMAILIO_PUBLIC_ADDRESS:5090;branch=z9hG4bK0ab8.1c5e622e4af6b7b6c9ede7ade4a50bf8.0.
>> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
>> KAMAILIO_PUBLIC_ADDRESS;rport=5060;branch=z9hG4bK0ab8.c8a54413000000000000000000000000.0.
>> To: <sip:5678*0012 at KAMAILIO_PUBLIC_ADDRESS>;tag=199aaa02310a0799i1.
>> From: <sip:click2call at KAMAILIO_PUBLIC_ADDRESS>
>> ;tag=0d71401ca91009b00be5953e2813d7e4-7471.
>> CSeq: 11 REFER.
>> Call-ID: 63dc8c8a5ea88a30-868 at KAMAILIO_PUBLIC_ADDRESS.
>> Max-Forwards: 69.
>> Content-Length: 0.
>> User-Agent: Kamailio.
>> Referred-By: sip:click2call at KAMAILIO_PUBLIC_ADDRESS.
>> Refer-To: sip:5678*0002 at KAMAILIO_PUBLIC_ADDRESS.
>> Contact: <sip:click2call at KAMAILIO_PUBLIC_ADDRESS:5060>.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 10:47 AM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla <
>> <miconda at gmail.com>miconda at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> can you send the ngrep trace for such case? I would like to look at the
>>> headers to understand properly what do you mean.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Daniel
>>>
>>> On 26/04/16 15:23, huseyin kalyoncu wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello
>>>
>>> I am trying to implement click 2 call functionality on Kamailio
>>> with dlg_bridge.
>>> But It seems that Kamailio routes REFER messages to devices according to
>>> Contact field of location table instead of Received field.
>>> But if the the IP in the Contact field is private REFER messages are
>>> failing so
>>> does the dlg_bridge.
>>>
>>>
>>> I called dlg_bridge in the config like this:
>>>
>>> dlg_bridge("sip:$param1", "sip:$param2",
>>> "sip:IP_ADDRESS_OF_KAMAILIO:5060");
>>>
>>> It rings the device in $param1 but after answering on that device
>>> Kamailio fails to send REFER if the Contact field for that device is
>>> Private IP.
>>> So it fails to initiate a call.
>>>
>>> How can I force Kamailio to use Received field for REFER messages
>>> instead of Contact field?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Huseyin
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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://www.asipto.comhttp://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
>>> Kamailio World Conference, Berlin, May 18-20, 2016 - http://www.kamailioworld.com
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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://www.asipto.comhttp://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
>> Kamailio World Conference, Berlin, May 18-20, 2016 - http://www.kamailioworld.com
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20160427/f039428f/attachment.html>
More information about the sr-users
mailing list