[OpenSIPS-Users] TopologyHiding in Dialog Module

Wed Apr 25 17:29:32 CEST 2012

Thank you very much Vlad...Now everything seems a lot clear to me!!

On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 10:30 AM, Vlad Paiu <vladpaiu at opensips.org> wrote:

> **
> Hello,
>
> match_dialog() works at dialog level, while t_check_trans() works at
> transaction level.
> When you call match_dialog() on a sequential request within the dialog,
> OpenSIPS will try to match the request to an already ongoing dialog in the
> OpenSIPS memory. If it succeeds, further on in your script you will have
> access to dialog related features.
>
> t_check_trans() works differently, based on what type of request you are
> handling. For CANCELs, it will return true if the INVITE transaction exists
> for that CANCEL, for ACKs it will return true if it's an end-to-end ACK for
> an INVITE transaction. Further more, for other requests, t_check_trans()
> will check if there is already an ongoing transaction, and thus the current
> request is a retransmission. In such a case, your script execution will
> stop, as you do not normally want to re-process retransmissions.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Vlad Paiu
> OpenSIPS Developerhttp://www.opensips-solutions.com
>
>
> On 04/25/2012 05:03 PM, Wilmar Campos wrote:
>
> Vlad, can you please explain the difference between match_dialog() and
> t_check_trans()?  I have read the documentation but I still don't get it!
>
>  Thank you,
>
>  WC
>
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 4:44 AM, Vlad Paiu <vladpaiu at opensips.org> wrote:
>
>>  Hi,
>>
>> It seems you are looping the ACK over & over to yourself, so I think your
>> sequential requests processing is wrong.
>> For matching sequential requests within a topo hiding dialog, use the
>> match_dialog() function [1] .
>>
>> [1] http://www.opensips.org/html/docs/modules/devel/dialog#id295095
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Vlad Paiu
>> OpenSIPS Developerhttp://www.opensips-solutions.com
>>
>>
>>   On 04/24/2012 08:17 PM, Wilmar Campos wrote:
>>
>> Here are additional trace information of what I am seeing:
>>
>>  Apr 24 13:12:42 prox-qos /usr/local/sbin/opensips[12526]:
>> DBG:rr:find_first_route: No Route headers found
>> Apr 24 13:12:42 prox-qos /usr/local/sbin/opensips[12526]:
>> DBG:rr:loose_route: There is no Route HF
>> Apr 24 13:12:42 prox-qos /usr/local/sbin/opensips[12526]:  no loose
>> Apr 24 13:12:42 prox-qos /usr/local/sbin/opensips[12526]:
>> ERROR:siptrace:trace_dialog: failed to create dialog
>> Apr 24 13:12:42 prox-qos /usr/local/sbin/opensips[12526]:  ack or prack
>> Apr 24 13:12:42 prox-qos /usr/local/sbin/opensips[12526]:
>> DBG:core:parse_headers: flags=78
>> Apr 24 13:12:42 prox-qos /usr/local/sbin/opensips[12526]:
>> DBG:tm:t_lookup_request: start searching: hash=58803, isACK=1
>> Apr 24 13:12:42 prox-qos /usr/local/sbin/opensips[12526]:
>> DBG:core:parse_headers: flags=38
>> Apr 24 13:12:42 prox-qos /usr/local/sbin/opensips[12526]:
>> DBG:core:parse_to_param: tag=3544276353-446053
>> Apr 24 13:12:42 prox-qos /usr/local/sbin/opensips[12526]:
>> DBG:core:parse_to: end of header reached, state=29
>> Apr 24 13:12:42 prox-qos /usr/local/sbin/opensips[12526]:
>> DBG:core:parse_to: display={"Wilmar Campos"}, ruri={sip:12054 at x.x.x.101}
>> Apr 24 13:12:42 prox-qos /usr/local/sbin/opensips[12526]:
>> DBG:tm:t_lookup_request: REF_UNSAFE:[0xb4f2b744] after is 1
>> Apr 24 13:12:42 prox-qos /usr/local/sbin/opensips[12526]:
>> DBG:tm:t_lookup_request: e2e proxy ACK found
>> Apr 24 13:12:42 prox-qos /usr/local/sbin/opensips[12526]:  match
>> Apr 24 13:12:42 prox-qos /usr/local/sbin/opensips[12526]: x.x.x.253
>> <null> is ACK relay
>>  Apr 24 13:12:42 prox-qos /usr/local/sbin/opensips[12526]:
>> DBG:tm:t_newtran: transaction on entrance=(nil)
>> Apr 24 13:12:42 prox-qos /usr/local/sbin/opensips[12526]:
>> DBG:core:parse_headers: flags=ffffffffffffffff
>> Apr 24 13:12:42 prox-qos /usr/local/sbin/opensips[12526]:
>> DBG:tm:t_newtran: building branch for end2end ACK - flags=1
>> Apr 24 13:12:42 prox-qos /usr/local/sbin/opensips[12526]:
>> DBG:tm:t_relay_to: forwarding ACK
>> Apr 24 13:12:42 prox-qos /usr/local/sbin/opensips[12526]:
>> DBG:core:mk_proxy: doing DNS lookup...
>> Apr 24 13:12:42 prox-qos /usr/local/sbin/opensips[12526]:
>> DBG:core:check_ip_address: params x.x.x.253, x.x.x.253, 0
>> Apr 24 13:12:42 prox-qos /usr/local/sbin/opensips[12526]:
>> DBG:core:forward_request: sending:
>> Apr 24 13:12:42 prox-qos ACK: sip:x.x.x.253;did=c75.06cce112 SIP/2.0
>> Apr 24 13:12:42 prox-qos Max-Forwards: 47
>> Apr 24 13:12:42 prox-qos To: <sip:7917573108366435 at x.x.x.253><sip:7917573108366435 at x.x.x.253>
>> ;tag=c4d8a7fc-CC-33
>> Apr 24 13:12:42 prox-qos From: "Wilmar Campos" <sip:12054 at x.x.x.101><sip:12054 at x.x.x.101>
>> ;tag=3544276353-446053
>> Apr 24 13:12:42 prox-qos Call-ID: 1351817-3544276353-446044 at nextone
>> Apr 24 13:12:42 prox-qos CSeq: 1 ACK
>> Apr 24 13:12:42 prox-qos Allow: INVITE, BYE, OPTIONS, CANCEL, ACK,
>> REGISTER, NOTIFY, INFO, REFER, SUBSCRIBE, PRACK, UPDATE
>> Apr 24 13:12:42 prox-qos Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
>> x.x.x.253;branch=z9hG4bK3b5e.12d52d27.2
>> Apr 24 13:12:42 prox-qos Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
>> x.x.x.253;branch=z9hG4bK3b5e.12d52d27.2
>> Apr 24 13:12:42 prox-qos Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
>> x.x.x.253;branch=z9hG4bK3b5e.12d52d27.2
>> Apr 24 13:12:42 prox-qos Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
>> x.x.x.253;branch=z9hG4bK3b5e.12d52d27.2
>> Apr 24 13:12:42 prox-qos Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
>> x.x.x.253;branch=z9hG4bK3b5e.12d52d27.2
>> Apr 24 13:12:42 prox-qos Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
>> x.x.x.253;branch=z9hG4bK3b5e.12d52d27.2
>> Apr 24 13:12:42 prox-qos Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
>> x.x.x.253;branch=z9hG4bK3b5e.12d52d27.2
>> Apr 24 13:12:42 prox-qos Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
>> x.x.x.253;branch=z9hG4bK3b5e.12d52d27.2
>> Apr 24 13:12:42 prox-qos Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
>> x.x.x.253;branch=z9hG4bK3b5e.12d52d27.2
>> Apr 24 13:12:42 prox-qos Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
>> x.x.x.253;branch=z9hG4bK3b5e.12d52d27.2
>> Apr 24 13:12:42 prox-qos Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
>> x.x.x.253;branch=z9hG4bK3b5e.12d52d27.2
>> Apr 24 13:12:42 prox-qos Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
>> x.x.x.253;branch=z9hG4bK3b5e.12d52d27.2
>> Apr 24 13:12:42 prox-qos Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
>> x.x.x.253;branch=z9hG4bK3b5e.12d52d27.2
>> Apr 24 13:12:42 prox-qos Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
>> x.x.x.253;branch=z9hG4bK3b5e.12d52d27.2
>> Apr 24 13:12:42 prox-qos Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
>> x.x.x.253;branch=z9hG4bK3b5e.12d52d27.2
>> Apr 24 13:12:42 prox-qos Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
>> x.x.x.253;branch=z9hG4bK3b5e.12d52d27.2
>> Apr 24 13:12:42 prox-qos Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
>> x.x.x.253;branch=z9hG4bK3b5e.12d52d27.2
>> Apr 24 13:12:42 prox-qos Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
>> x.x.x.253;branch=z9hG4bK3b5e.12d52d27.2
>> Apr 24 13:12:42 prox-qos Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
>> x.x.x.253;branch=z9hG4bK3b5e.12d52d27.2
>> Apr 24 13:12:42 prox-qos Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
>> x.x.x.253;branch=z9hG4bK3b5e.12d52d27.2
>> Apr 24 13:12:42 prox-qos Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
>> x.x.x.253;branch=z9hG4bK3b5e.12d52d27.2
>> Apr 24 13:12:42 prox-qos Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
>> x.x.x.253;branch=z9hG4bK3b5e.12d52d27.2
>> Apr 24 13:12:42 prox-qos Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
>> x.x.x.101:5060;branch=z9hG4bKde33285d3f6afec6b8ce5c7ef7f135e1
>> Apr 24 13:12:42 prox-qos Contact: <sip:12054 at x.x.x.101:5060><sip:12054 at x.x.x.101:5060>
>> Apr 24 13:12:42 prox-qos Content-Length: 0
>> Apr 24 13:12:42 prox-qos .:
>> Apr 24 13:12:42 prox-qos /usr/local/sbin/opensips[12526]:
>> DBG:core:forward_request: orig. len=1822, new_len=1884, proto=1
>> Apr 24 13:12:42 prox-qos /usr/local/sbin/opensips[12528]:
>> DBG:core:parse_msg: SIP Request:
>> Apr 24 13:12:42 prox-qos /usr/local/sbin/opensips[12528]:
>> DBG:core:parse_msg:  method:  <ACK>
>> Apr 24 13:12:42 prox-qos /usr/local/sbin/opensips[12528]:
>> DBG:core:parse_msg:  uri:     <sip:x.x.x.253;did=c75.06cce112>
>> Apr 24 13:12:42 prox-qos /usr/local/sbin/opensips[12528]:
>> DBG:core:parse_msg:  version: <SIP/2.0>
>> Apr 24 13:12:42 prox-qos /usr/local/sbin/opensips[12528]:
>> DBG:core:parse_headers: flags=2
>> Apr 24 13:12:42 prox-qos /usr/local/sbin/opensips[12528]:
>> DBG:core:parse_to_param: tag=c4d8a7fc-CC-33
>> Apr 24 13:12:42 prox-qos /usr/local/sbin/opensips[12528]:
>> DBG:core:parse_to: end of header reached, state=29
>> Apr 24 13:12:42 prox-qos /usr/local/sbin/opensips[12528]:
>> DBG:core:parse_to: display={}, ruri={sip:7917573108366435 at x.x.x.253}
>> Apr 24 13:12:42 prox-qos /usr/local/sbin/opensips[12528]:
>> DBG:core:get_hdr_field: <To> [57]; uri=[sip:7917573108366435 at x.x.x.253]
>> Apr 24 13:12:42 prox-qos /usr/local/sbin/opensips[12528]:
>> DBG:core:get_hdr_field: to body [<sip:7917573108366435 at x.x.x.253><sip:7917573108366435 at x.x.x.253>
>> ]
>> Apr 24 13:12:42 prox-qos /usr/local/sbin/opensips[12528]:
>> DBG:core:get_hdr_field: cseq <CSeq>: <1> <ACK>
>> Apr 24 13:12:42 prox-qos /usr/local/sbin/opensips[12528]:
>> DBG:core:parse_via_param: found param type 232, <branch> =
>> <z9hG4bK3b5e.12d52d27.2>; state=16
>> Apr 24 13:12:42 prox-qos /usr/local/sbin/opensips[12528]:
>> DBG:core:parse_via: end of header reached, state=5
>> Apr 24 13:12:42 prox-qos /usr/local/sbin/opensips[12528]:
>> DBG:core:parse_headers: via found, flags=2
>> Apr 24 13:12:42 prox-qos /usr/local/sbin/opensips[12528]:
>> DBG:core:parse_headers: this is the first via
>> Apr 24 13:12:42 prox-qos /usr/local/sbin/opensips[12528]:
>> DBG:core:receive_msg: After parse_msg...
>> Apr 24 13:12:42 prox-qos /usr/local/sbin/opensips[12528]:
>> DBG:core:receive_msg: preparing to run routing scripts...
>> Apr 24 13:12:42 prox-qos /usr/local/sbin/opensips[12528]:
>> DBG:sl:sl_filter_ACK: to late to be a local ACK!
>> Apr 24 13:12:42 prox-qos /usr/local/sbin/opensips[12528]:
>> DBG:maxfwd:is_maxfwd_present: value = 47
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 4:41 AM, Vlad Paiu <vladpaiu at opensips.org> wrote:
>>
>>>  Hello,
>>>
>>> Please post a full SIP trace of the dialog where the ACK is not properly
>>> routed, as well as the OpenSIPS full debug log for it.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Vlad Paiu
>>> OpenSIPS Developerhttp://www.opensips-solutions.com
>>>
>>>
>>> On 04/20/2012 09:11 PM, Wilmar Campos wrote:
>>>
>>>  Hi to All,
>>> I hope everybody is well and ready for the weekend!
>>>
>>> In the last days I have been playing with the topologyhiding from the
>>> Dialog Module, I am using Opensips 1.8.0.
>>> When I dont use topology_hiding() all messages are transmited OK, but
>>> when I use it, all but the ACK messages are transmited,  t_relay is
>>> executed but message is never delivered to the other party.
>>>
>>>  Can you please point me to the right direction here.
>>>
>>>  I am pretty sure I am detecting the ACK, also I am sure t_relay its
>>> been executed.
>>>
>>>  Thank all for seeing this..
>>>
>>>  --
>>> Wilmar Campos
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Users mailing listUsers at lists.opensips.orghttp://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Users mailing list
>>> Users at lists.opensips.org
>>> http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>  --
>> Wilmar Campos
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Users mailing listUsers at lists.opensips.orghttp://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Users mailing list
>> Users at lists.opensips.org
>> http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>>
>>
>
>
>  --
> Wilmar Campos
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Users mailing listUsers at lists.opensips.orghttp://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Users mailing list
> Users at lists.opensips.org
> http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>
>

-- 
Wilmar Campos
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensips.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20120425/a8b8cd2c/attachment-0001.htm>