[OpenSIPS-Users] Topology_Hiding adding extra VIA header

[SamyGo]

Hi Razvan,


Here is the requested data.



*INITIAL INVITE: *Via: SIP/2.0/TLS 123.123.212.123:5061
;branch=z9hG4bK442.8373b213.0;i=35f5


*200 OK from the B party as received by OpenSIPS:*
Via: SIP/2.0/TLS 118.151.101.64:5061;branch=z9hG4bK442.9a584727.0;i=11



*200 OK as sent out by OpenSIPS:*
Via: SIP/2.0/TLS 123.123.212.123:5061
;received=123.123.212.123;rport=48664;branch=z9hG4bK442.8373b213.0;i=35f5
Via: SIP/2.0/TLS 123.123.212.123:5061
;received=123.123.212.123;rport=48664;branch=z9hG4bK442.8373b213.0;i=35f5


Here is the portion of debug log where the destination Answers the call and
topology Hiding restore VIA twice.

http://pastebin.com/z7pt7cwM


Thanks for your response and time looking at this for me.


Regards,
Sammy.


On Nov 14, 2016 3:49 AM, "Răzvan Crainea" <razvan at opensips.org> wrote:

> Hi, Samy!
>
> Can you post on pastebin debugging logs related to this call? Also, can
> you also post the Via headers of the initial INVITE and for the 200 OK
> received by OpenSIPS?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Răzvan Crainea
> OpenSIPS Solutionswww.opensips-solutions.com
>
> On 11/12/2016 12:33 AM, SamyGo wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm using OpenSIPS 2.2.1 version and I'm facing a weird situation where
> OpenSIPS is adding a duplicated VIA header to the 200 OK, This only happens
> when I've topology_hiding() engaged into the call.
>
> The scenario is very simple; two users making call to each other on the
> same OpenSIPS but with topology_hiding(). As a consequence of this double
> VIA the caller device doesn't trigger the ACK and hence we don't get media
> stream established between devices.
>
>
> *WITH TOPOLOGYHIDING:*
> SIP/2.0 200 OK
> Via: SIP/2.0/TLS 10.1.10.51:59231;received=7X.X
> X.XX.X7;rport=59231;branch=z9hG4bK-607165482-63
> Via: SIP/2.0/TLS 10.1.10.51:59231;received=7X.XX.XX.X7
> ;rport=59231;branch=z9hG4bK-607165482-63
> CSeq: 1 INVITE
> ...
>
>
> *WITHOUT TOPOHIDING: *
> SIP/2.0 200 OK
> Via: SIP/2.0/TLS 10.1.10.51:59223;received=7X.XX.XX.X7
> ;rport=59223;branch=z9hG4bK-607166212-58
> CSeq: 1 INVITE
>
>
> The only difference between the two scenarios is the function
> topology_hiding(); is commented out.
>
> It seems like a bug to me, can anyone guide me here validate this.
>
> * OpenSIPS Version:*
> version: opensips 2.2.1 (x86_64/linux)
> flags: STATS: On, DISABLE_NAGLE, USE_MCAST, SHM_MMAP, PKG_MALLOC,
> F_MALLOC, FAST_LOCK-ADAPTIVE_WAIT
> ADAPTIVE_WAIT_LOOPS=1024, MAX_RECV_BUFFER_SIZE 262144, MAX_LISTEN 16,
> MAX_URI_SIZE 1024, BUF_SIZE 65535
> poll method support: poll, epoll_lt, epoll_et, sigio_rt, select.
> git revision: 68ace2e
> main.c compiled on 18:34:37 Sep 28 2016 with gcc 4.8
>
>
> Thanks,
> Sammy
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensips.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20161114/eac93f36/attachment.htm>