[OpenSIPS-Users] Two OpenSIPS proxies issue

Mon Jul 9 10:45:12 CEST 2012

Hello,

This is quite strange, can you please also post a full OpenSIPS debug 
for the call where that ACK got relayed out like

         ACK 
sip:50.xx.xx.156;lr;ftag=d4xut7i3jx;nat=yes;vst=AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA;did=0f9.1ddb82a6 
SIP/2.0.
         Record-Route: <sip:99.xx.xx.161;r2=on;lr>.
         Record-Route: <sip:192.168.88.1;r2=on;lr>.


Regards,

Vlad Paiu
OpenSIPS Developer
http://www.opensips-solutions.com


On 07/09/2012 07:09 AM, duane.larson at gmail.com wrote:
> I just got my calls working by removing the Record-Route's and then 
> reinserting then in an order that would according to my topology.
>
> I will need to go back and start from scratch to see if a lot of the 
> other stuff I did was really needed or not and then update but here is 
> were I edited the Record-Routes
>
> When the INVITE is coming from my OpenSIPS/Proxy to the Callee I did
>
> if ( is_method("INVITE") ) {
> remove_hf("Record-Route");
> insert_hf("Record-Route: $(hdr(Record-Route)[2])\r\n", "Via");
> insert_hf("Record-Route: $(hdr(Record-Route)[1])\r\n", "Via");
> insert_hf("Record-Route: $(hdr(Record-Route)[0])\r\n", "Via");
> }
>
> Then when the 180 and 200 are coming from the Callee to the Caller 
> before the 180 and 200 go to the Caller I did the following
>
>
> if (t_check_status("180")){
> remove_hf("Record-Route");
> insert_hf("Record-Route: $(hdr(Record-Route)[2])\r\n", "Via");
> insert_hf("Record-Route: $(hdr(Record-Route)[1])\r\n", "Via");
> insert_hf("Record-Route: $(hdr(Record-Route)[0])\r\n", "Via");
>
> }
>
>
> if (t_check_status("200")){
> remove_hf("Record-Route");
> insert_hf("Record-Route: $(hdr(Record-Route)[2])\r\n", "Via");
> insert_hf("Record-Route: $(hdr(Record-Route)[1])\r\n", "Via");
> insert_hf("Record-Route: $(hdr(Record-Route)[0])\r\n", "Via");
>
> }
>
>
> So not sure if there is something wrong with the way OpenSIPS places 
> the Record-Route ordering when OpenSIPS has multiple interfaces. I am 
> not 100% sure if what I have done here is right or not but calls are 
> working now.
>
> Any feedback?
>
>
> On , duane.larson at gmail.com wrote:
> > I think I have multiple issues going on but I might be getting 
> closer to the issue.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I am wondering if this might be part of the issue.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > If you look at the the following, 
> http://www.tech-invite.com/Ti-sip-dialog.html#inv , for the first 
> INVITE message that the Callee receives the first Proxy that the 
> callee needs to take in its Record-Route is first in the list of 
> Record-Routes on the INVITE message. As for the Caller the 
> Record-Route set gets flipped (whatever Record-Route is on the top 
> will be its last route hop). So if this is the case then why is the 
> OpenSIPS/SBC device sending my Callee device an INVITE message with 
> the far end proxy, OpenSIPS/Proxy, on the top of the Record-Route 
> list? Here is the INVITE that my callee is getting
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > INVITE sip:9013XX3XX6 at 192.168.88.14:3072;line=9zx0whnm SIP/2.0
> >
> >
> > Record-Route: 
> 4aoni525hc;nat=yes;vst=AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA;did=598.b8b26331>
> >
> >
> > Record-Route:
> >
> >
> > Record-Route:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > The Record-Route with 50.XX.XX.156 should be at the bottom of the 
> list I think because that is the OpenSIPS/Proxy that is on the 
> Internet. Am I wrong on this? On the SIP trace I posted on pastebin 
> this INVITE to the Callee starts on line 299.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On , duane.larson at gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >
> > > I'm really not sure if I am just duck taping the issue but I was 
> able to make most of the call work. The only problem now is when the 
> Callee hangs up the BYE is sent directly to the OpenSIPS/Proxy IP 
> instead of going to the OpenSIPS/SBC. This will not work due to 
> firewall issues.
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > > My ACKs are no longer not showing up as Non-Loose Route messages, 
> but the BYEs are.
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > > So if the Caller hangs up the Callee sees the BYE message (GOOD!), 
> but if the Callee hangs up the Caller never sees the BYE message (Bad).
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > > I will send a PCAP trace to Ali directly.
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > > On , Ali Pey alipey at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > > > Duane,
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > > > The Ack should not have any request-route headers. Only Route 
> headers. If you see request-route headers, then you need to find how 
> they got there and fix that first.
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > > > I believe it is ok if the Ack doesn't go through loose route, in 
> that case it should be sent to the request-uri destination ip and that 
> IP should be your client IP.
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > > > Let me know if this help. If not, can you attach here a 
> wireshark trace and I will go through your signalling for you. Going 
> thought a text trace can be quit time consuming. In wireshark it's a 
> lot easier to jump from a message to another through the call flow. 
> You can use tcpdump to capture to .cap file for wireshark.
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > > > Regards,
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > > > Ali Pey
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > > > On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 3:35 PM, osiris123d 
> duane.larson at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > > > This is driving me crazy.  I was right the first time when I 
> said that one of
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > > > the ACKs was not showing up as a loose route.  It is the third 
> ACK that is
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > > > coming from the OpenSIPS/Proxy.  When it reaches the 
> OpenSIPS/SBC device the
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > > > ACK fails as a loose route.
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > > > It would make sense that this would not be a loose route because 
> there are
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > > > no Route headers so the loose_route() function would return FALSE.
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > > > The issue still remains that when the ACK reaches the 
> OpenSIPS/SBC it still
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > > > isn't routed to the Callee, instead it is looped and routed to 
> the same
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > > > interface it came from because that is whats in the RURI.
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > > > --
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > > > View this message in context: 
> http://opensips-open-sip-server.1449251.n2.nabble.com/Two-OpenSIPS-proxies-issue-tp7580685p7580743.html
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > > > Sent from the OpenSIPS - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > > > Users mailing list
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > > > Users at lists.opensips.org
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > > > http://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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensips.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20120709/0dd90c76/attachment-0001.htm>