[OpenSIPS-Users] interaction between fix_nated_contact(), topology_hiding() and serial forking

[Jeff Pyle]

Yes, and only when topology_hiding() is called later.  No t_newtran().

How can one see the fixed Contact in the script?  I've tried xlog with $ct,
but that always shows the original one.  I know it's being lost (or not)
only by looking at callee_contact from dlg_list.  If I can see the updated
one I can be more precise about where I'm losing it.


- Jeff




On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 5:45 AM Răzvan Crainea <razvan at opensips.org> wrote:

> Hi, Jeff!
>
> So you're claiming that the updated contact is lost even if you call
> fix_nated_contact() before topology_hiding(), but only for the second
> branch? Are you calling t_newtran() anywhere in your script?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Răzvan Crainea
> OpenSIPS Core Developer
> http://www.opensips-solutions.com
>
> On 10/28/20 8:30 PM, Jeff Pyle wrote:
> > Liviu,
> >
> > It looks like the fixed/update contact is lost only when
> > topology_hiding() is involved.  Would you prefer a separate issue, or
> > shall I append the issue you referenced before?
> >
> >
> > - Jeff
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 2:15 PM Jeff Pyle <jeff at ugnd.org
> > <mailto:jeff at ugnd.org>> wrote:
> >
> >     Hey Liviu,
> >
> >     fix_nated_contact() before topology_hiding().  Got it.  As far as
> >     losing the fixed contact during a serial fork, I'll do more testing
> >     to localize exactly which combination of circumstances causes this
> >     to surface and open a bug report.
> >
> >
> >     - Jeff
> >
> >
> >     On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 1:28 PM Liviu Chircu <liviu at opensips.org
> >     <mailto:liviu at opensips.org>> wrote:
> >
> >         Hi!
> >
> >         On 28.10.2020 18:49, Jeff Pyle wrote:
> >>         First, I lose the updated Contact from fix_nated_contact()
> >>         after a serial fork.  Is this expected?
> >         I would assume the `fix_nated_contact()` lump changes get backed
> >         up into shared memory, then made available during the
> >         failure_route. Anything else and IMHO it looks like a bug.
> >         Opinions welcome.
> >>
> >>         Second, I've determined that if the Contact URI is not wrapped
> >>         in <>, that's when I get the "second attempt to change URI
> >>         Contact" error when running fix_nated_contact() in the
> >>         branch_route[]. This feels like a bug.
> >
> >         This one is a known, documented issue.  Long story short: you
> >         should always call fix_nated_contact() _before_
> >         topology_hiding().  See this truth table for more info [1].
> >
> >         [1]: https://github.com/OpenSIPS/opensips/issues/2172
> >
> >         --
> >         Liviu Chircu
> >         www.twitter.com/liviuchircu  <http://www.twitter.com/liviuchircu>
> |www.opensips-solutions.com  <http://www.opensips-solutions.com>
> >
> >         _______________________________________________
> >         Users mailing list
> >         Users at lists.opensips.org <mailto: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
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20201029/cd531f72/attachment-0001.html>