[OpenSIPS-Users] B2B issue with UPDATE message
Bogdan-Andrei Iancu
bogdan at opensips.org
Wed Mar 28 19:51:20 CEST 2012
Hi Duane,
I uploaded this patch on the SVN trunk, but I will wait a bit before
backporting - just to see if there are any side effects - what I'm
concerned a bit is the handling of UPDATE request in early state. Any
idea if you could test this case also ? (UPDATES from callee side of
b2b, while still in early)
Regards,
Bogdan
On 03/28/2012 08:30 PM, duane.larson at gmail.com wrote:
> SUCCESS!!! You rock. Thanks
>
> When will this go into affect on the trunk?
>
> #
> U 2012/03/28 12:21:21.571998 64.136.174.30:5060 -> 173.XXX.XXX.88:5060
> UPDATE sip:173.XXX.XXX.88:5060 SIP/2.0.
> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
> 64.136.174.30:5060;branch=z9hG4bK2sansay155968379rdb15277.
> To: "9016XX6XX4"
> <sip:9016XX6XX4 at irock.com>;tag=38c6d6bcece65cb87e503e966caf6840-231e.
> From: sip:+15125XX6XX5 at 64.136.174.30:5060;tag=sansay155968379rdb15277.
> Call-ID: B2B.164.6603158.
> CSeq: 2 UPDATE.
> Contact: <sip:+15125XX6XX5 at 64.136.174.30:5060>.
> Max-Forwards: 70.
> Content-Length: 0.
> .
>
> #
> U 2012/03/28 12:21:21.573404 173.XXX.XXX.88:5060 -> 50.XXX.XXX.156:5060
> UPDATE sip:dzewqfht at 216.12.249.203:17419 SIP/2.0.
> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 173.XXX.XXX.88;branch=z9hG4bKb41c.fe117284.0.
> To: "9016XX6XX4"
> <sip:9016XX6XX4 at irock.com>;tag=e299814d38cd4d34a6a1ba150aaa8da7.
> From: <sip:5125XX6XX5 at irock.com>;tag=B2B.502.132.
> CSeq: 2 UPDATE.
> Call-ID: a0dd9a689d4848c0856f67c5ad13abcf.
> Route:
> <sip:50.XXX.XXX.156;lr;ftag=e299814d38cd4d34a6a1ba150aaa8da7;nat=yes;did=711.16170c36>.
> Content-Length: 0.
> User-Agent: OpenSIPS (1.8.0-dev0-notls (x86_64/linux)).
> Max-Forwards: 70.
> Contact: <sip:173.XXX.XXX.88:5060>.
> .
>
> #
> U 2012/03/28 12:21:21.675141 50.XXX.XXX.156:5060 -> 173.XXX.XXX.88:5060
> SIP/2.0 200 OK.
> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 173.XXX.XXX.88;branch=z9hG4bKb41c.fe117284.0.
> Record-Route: <sip:50.XXX.XXX.156;lr;ftag=B2B.502.132>.
> Call-ID: a0dd9a689d4848c0856f67c5ad13abcf.
> From: <sip:5125XX6XX5 at irock.com>;tag=B2B.502.132.
> To: "9016XX6XX4"
> <sip:9016XX6XX4 at irock.com>;tag=e299814d38cd4d34a6a1ba150aaa8da7.
> CSeq: 2 UPDATE.
> Contact: <sip:dzewqfht at 172.17.102.28:63259>.
> Allow: SUBSCRIBE, NOTIFY, PRACK, INVITE, ACK, BYE, CANCEL, UPDATE,
> MESSAGE, REFER.
> Supported: 100rel, norefersub.
> Server: Blink 0.2.7 (Windows).
> Content-Length: 0.
> .
>
> #
> U 2012/03/28 12:21:21.676451 173.XXX.XXX.88:5060 -> 64.136.174.30:5060
> SIP/2.0 200 OK.
> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
> 64.136.174.30:5060;branch=z9hG4bK2sansay155968379rdb15277.
> To: "9016XX6XX4"
> <sip:9016XX6XX4 at irock.com>;tag=38c6d6bcece65cb87e503e966caf6840-231e.
> From: sip:+15125XX6XX5 at 64.136.174.30:5060;tag=sansay155968379rdb15277.
> Call-ID: B2B.164.6603158.
> CSeq: 2 UPDATE.
> Supported: 100rel, norefersub.
> Allow: SUBSCRIBE, NOTIFY, PRACK, INVITE, ACK, BYE, CANCEL, UPDATE,
> MESSAGE, REFER.
> Contact: <sip:173.XXX.XXX.88:5060>.
> Server: Ae SIP B2BUA.
> Content-Length: 0.
> .
>
>
> On , Bogdan-Andrei Iancu <bogdan at opensips.org> wrote:
> > Hi Duane,
> >
> >
> >
> > Could you tried the attached patch please .
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks and regards,
> >
> > Bogdan
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 03/27/2012 07:26 PM, duane.larson at gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >
> > Just wondering if there is an update on the UPDATE
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On , duane.larson at gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks for looking at this.
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > On , Bogdan-Andrei Iancu bogdan at opensips.org> wrote:
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > Thanks, got the info I need - I have a start, need to investigate
> >
> > > > bit more on UPDATE handling. I will come up with a fix for you.
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > Regards,
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > Bogdan
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > On 03/23/2012 05:09 PM, Duane Larson wrote:
> >
> > > > Ok
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > Patched dlg.c to look like this
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > b2b_dlg_t* b2b_search_htable_next_dlg(b2b_dlg_t* start_dlg,
> >
> > > > b2b_table table, unsigned int hash_index,
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > unsigned int local_index, str* to_tag, str*
> >
> > > > from_tag, str* callid)
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > {
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > b2b_dlg_t* dlg;
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > str dlg_from_tag={NULL, 0};
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > dlg_leg_t* leg;
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > LM_DBG("entering with start=%p, table=%p, hash=%i,
> >
> > > > label=%i \n",
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > start_dlg,table,hash_index,local_index);
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > if(callid)
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > LM_DBG("searching callid %d[%.*s]\n",
> >
> > > > callid->len,callid->len, callid->s);
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > if(to_tag)
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > LM_DBG("searching totag %d[%.*s]\n",
> >
> > > > to_tag->len,to_tag->len, to_tag->s);
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > if(from_tag)
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > LM_DBG("searching fromtag %d[%.*s]\n",
> >
> > > > from_tag->len,from_tag->len, from_tag->s);
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > dlg= start_dlg?start_dlg->next:table[hash_index].first;
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > while(dlg)
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > {
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > And here is the debug output and an NGREP of the call
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > http://pastebin.com/ZiQsQj5r
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 6:19 AM,
> >
> > > > Bogdan-Andrei Iancu bogdan at opensips.org>
> >
> > > > wrote:
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > Hi Duane,
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > Strange, the logs shows that the UPDATE did not actually
> >
> > > > match, while the BYE did...
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > Could you please retake the test (same debug=4) while using
> >
> > > > the attached patch - the patch is just for printing more info
> >
> > > > related to matching.
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > Thanks and regards,
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > Bogdan
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > On 03/22/2012 06:24 PM, duane.larson at gmail.com
> >
> > > > wrote:
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > Here is a debug and the NGREP that goes along with it.
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > http://pastebin.com/DuDKUrGd
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > On , Bogdan-Andrei Iancu bogdan at opensips.org>
> >
> > > > wrote:
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > > Hi Duane,
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > > Could please re-run the scenario with opensips in
> >
> > > > full debug
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > > (debug=4) and and post somewhere the logs
> >
> > > > corresponding to UPDATE
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > > and BYE processing ?
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > > Thanks and regards,
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > > Bogdan
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > > On 03/22/2012 03:46 AM, duane.larson at gmail.com
> >
> > > > wrote:
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > > I am seeing the following issue
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > > One of OpenSIPS users makes an outbound call
> >
> > > > through a SIP
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > > carrier. This gets sent to my OpenSIPS B2BUA which
> >
> > > > then sends it
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > > to the SIP carrier. The calls length makes it to 30
> >
> > > > minutes and
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > > then it is killed.
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > > I see that the SIP carrier at around the 30 minute
> >
> > > > mark is sending
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > > an UPDATE message to the client but for some reason
> >
> > > > when the
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > > OpenSIPS B2BUA sees this UPDATE message it doesn't
> >
> > > > think it is
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > > apart of the current dialog. So then the SIP
> >
> > > > carrier sends a BYE
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > > because it never got a reply back for the UPDATE.
> >
> > > > The OpenSIPS
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > > B2BUA has no problem recognizing the BYE message as
> >
> > > > being apart of
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > > the Dialog and sends this over to the OpenSIPS
> >
> > > > user. Am I doing
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Bogdan-Andrei Iancu
> >
> > OpenSIPS Founder and Developer
> >
> > http://www.opensips-solutions.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
--
Bogdan-Andrei Iancu
OpenSIPS Founder and Developer
http://www.opensips-solutions.com
More information about the Users
mailing list