[OpenSIPS-Users] Topology_Hiding adding extra VIA header
Răzvan Crainea
razvan at opensips.org
Wed Nov 16 17:39:53 CET 2016
Hi, Sammy!
Most likely that WIP refers to the re-invites generated for pinging
purposes. Are you using the "R/r" flags for the create_dialog() function?
Best regards,
Răzvan Crainea
OpenSIPS Core Developer
http://www.opensips-solutions.com
On 11/15/2016 09:56 PM, SamyGo wrote:
> Hi Again,
>
> Is this related to the "/Work Still in progress"/ related to
> Topology_hiding module as mentioned here at changelog:
>
> http://opensips.org/pub/opensips/2.2.2/ChangeLog
>
> 2015-10-14 Vlad Paiu <vladpaiu at opensips dot org>
> * [c0f25f7] :
>
> Added Re-INVITE in-dialog pinging support
> Controlled via the new "R" and "r" flags available to create_dialog() as well as the new reinvite_ping_interval module param
>
> Work still in progress :
> - Properly handle late negociation between endpoints
> - Ensure SDP persistency ( DB and BIN replication )
> - Ensure compatibility with topology hiding ( currently the Contact header
> will be bogus when doing TH )
> - Whitelist or blacklist logic ( terminate call for 481 and 408 timeout, or terminate call for anything else other than 200 and 491 )
> - Extensive testing needed for race conditions specified in rfc 5407
>
> The module paramns in my opensips.cfg look like this.
>
> loadmodule "topology_hiding.so" modparam("topology_hiding",
> "force_dialog", 1) modparam("topology_hiding", "th_callid_prefix", "myvoip_box1")
> modparam("topology_hiding", "th_passed_contact_uri_params", "account_id")
> modparam("topology_hiding", "th_passed_contact_params", "+mediabx1.wholevoip.se <http://mediabx1.wholevoip.se>;device;caller")
>
> Looking for some answers thanks,
>
> Regards,
> Sammy
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 12:19 PM, SamyGo <govoiper at gmail.com
> <mailto:govoiper at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Hi Razvan,
>
> I just noticed that since Topo hiding function gives error, the
> calls using this do not show any changes in CallID or Contact or any
> other details , seems like topohiding is not doing it's job for such
> calls anymore. !
>
> Kindly let me know of anything further required to get this resolved.
>
> Thanks,
> Sammy.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 1:30 PM, SamyGo <govoiper at gmail.com
> <mailto:govoiper at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> 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
> <mailto: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 Solutions
> www.opensips-solutions.com <http://www.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.XX.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 list
>> Users at lists.opensips.org <mailto:Users at lists.opensips.org>
>> http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>> <http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Users mailing list
> Users at lists.opensips.org <mailto:Users at lists.opensips.org>
> http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
> <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
>
More information about the Users
mailing list