[SR-Users] topos module - possible bug

Sergey Basov sergey.v.basov at gmail.com
Fri Apr 28 14:57:35 CEST 2017 

Some more debug

after adding debug output after each iteration I got:

Apr 28 15:51:51 csbc-uat /usr/sbin/kamailio[13743]: DEBUG: topos
[tps_msg.c:457]: tps_pack_message(): sbasov compacted headers - b_rr:
[<sip:127.0.0.8;line=sr-BRwEkMcFYXzjDMqpsSozWseXDMGxppCqzh1Ek2ZS1uoLBVfSPhqYZXlvyga*>](84)
Apr 28 15:51:51 csbc-uat /usr/sbin/kamailio[13743]: DEBUG: topos
[tps_msg.c:457]: tps_pack_message(): sbasov compacted headers - b_rr:
[<sip:127.0.0.8;line=sr-BRwEk.dED.sRD.TSD.z2k.sEGLlvygavebZAeLq9pRZROhZq1.F9BJfpywe1pMz7PLB8GdeF1RFST377QpcMQuTfepwJDJZ.zhdvPbGJxsXnTsXnTsXnTsXnTsXnTsXnTsXnTsXnTsXnTsXnTsXnTsXnTsXnTsdvPbG7xsXnTsXnTsXnTsXnTsXnTsXnTsXnTsXnTsXnTsXne7YnTuP.TsXnTsFnTsXnTsXnTsXnTsXnTsXn>](348)
Apr 28 15:51:51 csbc-uat /usr/sbin/kamailio[13743]: DEBUG: topos
[tps_msg.c:457]: tps_pack_message(): sbasov compacted headers - b_rr:
[<sip:10.56.42.33:5090;lr;ftag=iOdvx4ub2iroSnVXNC4w784FIcbrB-4i;did=e9f.5f22;vsf=AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABlY2Bmf359HGJ6cX8bc3h9OjUwNjA7dXNlcj1waG9uZQ--;vst=AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQAAAAOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA>](554)

Apr 28 15:51:51 csbc-uat /usr/sbin/kamailio[13743]: DEBUG: topos
[tps_msg.c:475]: tps_pack_message(): compacted headers - a_rr: [](0) -
b_rr: [<sip:10.56.42.33:5090;lr;ftag=iOdvx4ub2iroSnVXNC4w784FIcbrB-4i;did=e9f.5f22;vsf=AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABlY2Bmf359HGJ6cX8bc3h9OjUwNjA7dXNlcj1waG9uZQ--;vst=AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQAAAAOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA>](554)
- s_rr: [](0)

So size are computed correctly, but part of record-routes
disappears.... And we can see correct size of the record but only last
part of the record-routes

Hope it helps
--
Best regards,
Sergey Basov                     e-mail: sergey.v.basov at gmail.com


2017-04-28 15:37 GMT+03:00 Sergey Basov <sergey.v.basov at gmail.com>:
> One more detail
>
> When debug=3 I see in logs (look at size of record and it contents)
>
> Apr 28 14:16:44 csbc-uat /usr/sbin/kamailio[13287]: DEBUG: topos
> [tps_msg.c:473]: tps_pack_message(): compacted headers - a_rr: [](0) -
> b_rr: [](0) - s_rr:
> [<sip:10.56.42.33;r2=on;lr;ftag=ed1qg.1TlqHP7frDwZWwhcyKAcOfIVTn;did=a4b.fc01;vsf=AAAAAAoLAQ4DAA4DAHlnYg5heGJnG3Rnd3MebX14CTUwNjA7dXNlcj1waG9uZQ--;vst=AAAAAAMOAwEABwcEAwd3AnBlfGJ9BRxjYGAUeXl/dRU2PChyPXBob25l;nat=yes>,<sip:212.58.160.253:5061;transport=tls;r2=on;lr;ftag=ed1qg.1TlqHP7frDwZWwhcyKAcOfIVTn;did=a4b.fc01;vsf=AAAAAAoLAQ4DAA4DAHlnYg5heGJnG3Rnd3MebX14CTUwNjA7dXNlcj1waG9uZQ--;vst=AAAAAAMOAwEABwcEAwd3AnBlfGJ9BRxjYGAUeXl/dRU2PChyPXBob25l;nat=yes>](453)
>
> 453 - is a real size of shown header
>
> s_rr parses normal, but b_rr
>
> Apr 28 14:16:48 csbc-uat /usr/sbin/kamailio[13273]: DEBUG: topos
> [tps_msg.c:473]: tps_pack_message(): compacted headers - a_rr: [](0) -
> b_rr: [<sip:10.56.42.33:5090;lr;ftag=ed1qg.1TlqHP7frDwZWwhcyKAcOfIVTn;did=a4b.6ec;vsf=AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABlY2Bmf359HGJ6cX8bc3h9OjUwNjA7dXNlcj1waG9uZQ--;vst=AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQAAAAOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA>](553)
> - s_rr: [](0)
>
> 553 - seems a real correct size of the recordroute header and it
> differs from size with \0 at the end
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Sergey Basov                     e-mail: sergey.v.basov at gmail.com
>
>
> 2017-04-28 14:46 GMT+03:00 Sergey Basov <sergey.v.basov at gmail.com>:
>> Hi All.
>>
>> I just try to pass call throught 3 kamailio.
>> I got result like yours
>>
>> If you need testers for patch - I am ready )
>>
>> --
>> Best regards,
>> Sergey Basov                     e-mail: sergey.v.basov at gmail.com
>>
>>
>> 2017-04-28 12:57 GMT+03:00 Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda at gmail.com>:
>>> There seems to be an issue saving the record-route list for b-side in
>>> topos_d table -- first two are saved but then there are only 0 characters
>>> instead of the rest of record routes:
>>>
>>> '<sip:192.168.252.75;r2=on;lr=on;ftag=A1;did=072.87c;rtpi=1;nat=no;rtpi=1>\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0'
>>>
>>>  I will have to dig a bit into the code.
>>>
>>> Cheers, Daniel
>>>
>>>
>>> On 27.04.17 14:30, Pete Kelly wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes no problem. I wanted to come but the life schedule would not allow it
>>> this time.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 27 April 2017 at 13:11, Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> time, I need more time :-) ... with Kamailio World Conference around the
>>>> corner, I am caught in a lot of admin tasks...
>>>>
>>>> Daniel
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 27.04.17 13:11, Pete Kelly wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Daniel
>>>>
>>>> Is there anything else you need on this?
>>>>
>>>> On 26 April 2017 at 15:06, Pete Kelly <pkelly at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Daniel
>>>>>
>>>>> It's CSeq 1, fromtag A1
>>>>>
>>>>> DB attached
>>>>>
>>>>> On 26 April 2017 at 15:03, Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can you paste here the from tag or cseq for the dialog you are referring
>>>>>> to? Because the number of frames are not matching my pcap viewer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Send also the db dump, they should reveal if something is broken there.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> Daniel
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 26.04.17 14:46, Pete Kelly wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ah I see why it is confusing
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This setup maintains a Call-ID through an SBC downstream, so the
>>>>>> INVITE's you see have the same Call-ID but they have a different
>>>>>> fromtag/cseq, Wireshark shows them all as one call which is annoying when
>>>>>> looking at the viewer!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you check the first call only between 252.70 and 252.75 you will see
>>>>>> INVITE (frame 4), 200OK (frame 16) with lots of RR headers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The ACK generated by topos (frame 21) only contains 1 Route header, it
>>>>>> should contain more so the request can hop through the proxy chain as shown
>>>>>> in frame 16.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I see the example from Sergey is working, but there is only 1 RR header
>>>>>> in this example - as you can see from my example the topos module uses the
>>>>>> first RR header but ignores the other 5.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have the DB dump and logfiles from this call too if useful.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Pete
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 26 April 2017 at 12:41, Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda at gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As I could notice upon a quick look, there seems to be two calls -- two
>>>>>>> INVITE requests having same call id but different cseq. Can you confirm
>>>>>>> this is the case? Because the capture doesn't seem to have all the
>>>>>>> incoming/outgoing messages, some are missing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> Daniel
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 26.04.17 12:59, Sergey Basov wrote:
>>>>>>> > You give to us very hard callflow...
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > Without any pauses between responces..
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > Some requests go through 127.0.0.1... But responces from 127.0.0.1
>>>>>>> > not present.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > There are peers from which invites not present in dump. I can not see
>>>>>>> > ful path of the initial Invite, but there is responses.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > I will send dump in next email directly.
>>>>>>> > --
>>>>>>> > Best regards,
>>>>>>> > Sergey Basov                     e-mail: sergey.v.basov at gmail.com
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > 2017-04-26 11:01 GMT+03:00 Pete Kelly <pkelly at gmail.com>:
>>>>>>> >> Attached is the pcap from latest nightly.
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> As you can see (frame 21) the ACK is incorrect, I believe it should
>>>>>>> >> specify
>>>>>>> >> all the hops from the 200OK (frame 16) so that the hop by hop ACK
>>>>>>> >> can be
>>>>>>> >> routed via the proxy chain.
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> topoh module works fine.
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> Pete
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> On 26 April 2017 at 05:18, Sergey Basov <sergey.v.basov at gmail.com>
>>>>>>> >> wrote:
>>>>>>> >>> I dont know how nightly builds are done.
>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>> >>> Just try with latest 5.0.1 nightly and send new dump.
>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>> >>> As I understud topos module done to remove record-route headers to
>>>>>>> >>> hide
>>>>>>> >>> topology...  Am I wright,  Daniel?
>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>> >>> And try to disable topos module and enable topoh module. Will it
>>>>>>> >>> all work
>>>>>>> >>> as you expecrs?
>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>> >>> --
>>>>>>> >>> WBR
>>>>>>> >>> Sergey Basov
>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>> >>> 25 апр. 2017 г. 11:31 PM пользователь "Pete Kelly"
>>>>>>> >>> <pkelly at gmail.com>
>>>>>>> >>> написал:
>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>> >>>> I have tried with 5.0.1 from today (25th April).
>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>> >>>> Are you saying build for 26th will have some fixes?
>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>> >>>> On 25 April 2017 at 18:59, Sergey Basov <sergey.v.basov at gmail.com>
>>>>>>> >>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> >>>>> Actualy latest fixes to 180/183/200,  ACK and memory leak was
>>>>>>> >>>>> pushed to
>>>>>>> >>>>> 5.0 and master branch.
>>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>> So, please try with latest 5.0.1 nightly.
>>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>> --
>>>>>>> >>>>> WBR
>>>>>>> >>>>> Sergey Basov
>>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>> 25 апр. 2017 г. 8:55 PM пользователь "Pete Kelly"
>>>>>>> >>>>> <pkelly at gmail.com>
>>>>>>> >>>>> написал:
>>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>> Call is with sipp but first goes through another SBC to clean up
>>>>>>> >>>>>> the
>>>>>>> >>>>>> SIP (in case of problems with sipp via headers etc).
>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>> The traces I've done are actually with 4.4.
>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>> Will they be OK or would you prefer 5.0.1? The problem is
>>>>>>> >>>>>> exactly the
>>>>>>> >>>>>> same on both.
>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>> On 25 April 2017 at 16:25, Sergey Basov
>>>>>>> >>>>>> <sergey.v.basov at gmail.com>
>>>>>>> >>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi.
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Can you send dump of the call with kamailio 5.0.1 nightly?
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> And does you make call using sipp?
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> WBR
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sergey Basov
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> 25 апр. 2017 г. 5:57 PM пользователь "Pete Kelly"
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> <pkelly at gmail.com>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> написал:
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Looks like from last night:
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 5.0.1+0~20170425013247.36+trusty
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 25 April 2017 at 15:42, Daniel-Constantin Mierla
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <miconda at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> to be sure, it is 5.0.1 build from last night or quite
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> recent? There
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> were some fixes in the past days to topos module.
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Daniel
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 25.04.17 15:59, Pete Kelly wrote:
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi Daniel
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sorry for the delayed response to this, the ACK is for a
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 200OK yes
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> and the problem still persists in latest 4.4 and the 5.0.1
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> nightly build.
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I have all DB entries/kam logs/pcap files.
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If you check the attached pcap, 192.168.70.70 and
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 192.168.252.70 are
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> the same instance of Kamailio, it is being used to bridge the
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 2 networks.
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Frame 34 shows the 200OK with lots of Record-Route etc, and
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> frame 35
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> shows topos in action.
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> However the ACK that is relayed in Frame 38 seems to be
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> missing all
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> the Route information that was supplied in the 200OK, this
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> causes the ACK to
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> be relayed directly to the Contact, breaking the proxy chain.
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Pete
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 22 February 2017 at 18:31, Daniel-Constantin Mierla
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <miconda at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> is the ACK for 200ok? Or an ack for a negative response?
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Can you get a pcap for such situation with all messages
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> related to
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> the call?
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Daniel
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 22/02/2017 17:20, Pete Kelly wrote:
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I am using the topos module when bridging 2 networks with
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Kamailio.
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The INVITE/200OK part of the transaction is working fine
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> (i.e. the
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Contact on both sides matches correctly the corresponding
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> network).
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> However when the ACK is sent into Kamailio, instead of
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> realising
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> the next hop is myself and skipping it, Kamailio is sending
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> the ACK directly
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> to itself as a packet, causing the call setup to break.
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Does anyone have any advice for this situation?
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> www.twitter.com/miconda -- www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Kamailio Advanced Training - Mar 6-8 (Europe) and Mar 20-22
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> (USA) -
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> www.asipto.com
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Kamailio World Conference - May 8-10, 2017 -
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> www.kamailioworld.com
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Daniel-Constantin Mierla
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> www.twitter.com/miconda -- www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Kamailio Advanced Training - May 22-24 (USA) - www.asipto.com
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Kamailio World Conference - May 8-10, 2017 -
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> www.kamailioworld.com
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> sr-users at lists.kamailio.org
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Daniel-Constantin Mierla
>>>>>>> www.twitter.com/miconda -- www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
>>>>>>> Kamailio Advanced Training - May 22-24 (USA) - www.asipto.com
>>>>>>> Kamailio World Conference - May 8-10, 2017 - www.kamailioworld.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Daniel-Constantin Mierla
>>>>>> www.twitter.com/miconda -- www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
>>>>>> Kamailio Advanced Training - May 22-24 (USA) - www.asipto.com
>>>>>> Kamailio World Conference - May 8-10, 2017 - www.kamailioworld.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Daniel-Constantin Mierla
>>>> www.twitter.com/miconda -- www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
>>>> Kamailio Advanced Training - May 22-24 (USA) - www.asipto.com
>>>> Kamailio World Conference - May 8-10, 2017 - www.kamailioworld.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Daniel-Constantin Mierla
>>> www.twitter.com/miconda -- www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
>>> Kamailio Advanced Training - May 22-24 (USA) - www.asipto.com
>>> Kamailio World Conference - May 8-10, 2017 - www.kamailioworld.com
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
>>> sr-users at lists.kamailio.org
>>> https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
>>>

More information about the sr-users mailing list