[OpenSIPS-Devel] eyeBeam NAT ping packets

[Ovidiu Sas]

That was my observation too (in one of my previous replies to Saul).
The thing is, if we reply to it, we can make the client's firewall
happy and we no longer need to perform server keep-alives.
I have mixed feelings about it :)

-ovidiu

On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 12:12 PM, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu
<bogdan at opensips.org> wrote:
> I see here:
>
>    This approach can only be used with connection-oriented transports
>    such as TCP or SCTP
>
> So, maybe the package is not dummy, but it is wrongly used (over UDP) :)....
>
> Of course, technically can be done (to answer); the question is if it
> make sense and if it is sane.
>
> Regards,
>
> Bogdan-Andrei Iancu
> OpenSIPS Founder and Developer
> http://www.opensips-solutions.com
>
>
> On 10/30/2013 05:56 PM, Ovidiu Sas wrote:
>> The eyeBeam dummy packet is not that dummy.
>> It's a 4 byte packet: CRLFCRLF.
>> This is just like the TCP ping packet.
>> We could reply with CRLF, as Saul suggested.
>> See SIP outbound :http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5626#section-3.5.1
>>
>> -ovidiu
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 7:07 AM, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu
>> <bogdan at opensips.org> wrote:
>>> Hello Ovidiu,
>>>
>>> Thanks for the "fix". In regards to the pings from eyeBeam - how do you
>>> want to reply to some dummy packages you do not understand ?
>>>
>>> Best regards
>>>
>>> Bogdan-Andrei Iancu
>>> OpenSIPS Founder and Developer
>>> http://www.opensips-solutions.com
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/30/2013 01:28 AM, Ovidiu Sas wrote:
>>>> I checked the code before my initial post and I wasn't sure if the 20
>>>> was the length of the whole UDP packet or just the payload.
>>>> It turns out that it is the payload and those packets from eyeBeam
>>>> were indeed discarded.
>>>> The trouble packets were in fact sent by a Grandstream device and
>>>> those were stun packets.
>>>> After I enabled the stun module, the error logs were gone.
>>>> I enhanced the error logs to print the source IP and port of those
>>>> un-parsable messages.  It helps in troubleshooting live systems :)
>>>>
>>>> With respect to those eyeBeam packets, we could indeed reply to them
>>>> instead of dropping them.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Ovidiu Sas
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 6:27 AM, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu
>>>> <bogdan at opensips.org> wrote:
>>>>> Hi guys,
>>>>>
>>>>> The UDP stack in OpenSIPS silently discards any packages less than 20
>>>>> bytes. See the "MIN_UDP_PACKET" in config.h .
>>>>> Are your pings longer than 20 ?!?
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Bogdan-Andrei Iancu
>>>>> OpenSIPS Founder and Developer
>>>>> http://www.opensips-solutions.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 10/19/2013 02:47 AM, Saúl Ibarra Corretgé wrote:
>>>>>> On Oct 18, 2013, at 11:14 AM, Ovidiu Sas <osas at voipembedded.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I forgot to mention in my previous e-mail that those ping packets are
>>>>>>> over UDP, which seems like a bug in eyeBeam.
>>>>>>> Anyway, the end result is that opensips logs are polluted.
>>>>>>> Over TCP, it seems that those packets are properly handled by opensips.
>>>>>>> It's UDP that is having issues.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh. I guess OpenSIPS should reply with CRLF like if it was TCP. Be gentle in what you accept… :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Saúl Ibarra Corretgé
>>>>>> AG Projects
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Devel mailing list
>>>>>> Devel at lists.opensips.org
>>>>>> http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel
>>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Devel mailing list
>>>>> Devel at lists.opensips.org
>>>>> http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel
>>>>
>>
>>



-- 
VoIP Embedded, Inc.
http://www.voipembedded.com