I don't use the [routes] keyword anywhere in any .xml file (neither UAC nor UAS). I tried the manual "Record-Route" in '200 OK' response of UAS, but the problem remains.
Does anybody know if I have to use the 'rrs' attribute somehow in the XML senario files ? thanks for any new hint, Kostas Victor L wrote: > Hello Kostas, > > Here's a problem I ran into - it could be related to what you are seeing: > > In my case, the proxy (media server also configured with it), is > supposed to ACK as soon as it receives a 200 OK. However, it would not > work until I figured that I was using the [routes] keyword while > composing the 200 OK message. This keyword extracted the Record-Route > header from the original header and converted it to a Route header. This > is not supported by SIP. A 200 OK message should preserve the > Record-Route headers. As soon as I added the Record-Route headers > manually and stopped using the [routes] keyword, I got my scenario > working. Verify if this is the case in your scenario. > > Hope this helps. > > Vic > > On 9/20/06, *Kostas Marneris* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > Hello all, > > I run the basic UAC senario in Host A (1.1.1.1 <http://1.1.1.1>) and > the basic UAS senario in Host B ( 2.2.2.2 <http://2.2.2.2>). > I have a SER SIP Proxy in the middle (3.3.3.3 <http://3.3.3.3>). > > > UAC : > ./sipp -sn uac -r 1 -m 1 -d 5000 -i 1.1.1.1 <http://1.1.1.1> > 3.3.3.3 <http://3.3.3.3> > > > UAS : > ./sipp -sn uas > > > SER.cfg : > > I use the following hack in ser.cfg, because the default user > 'service' is not > actually registered in Location DB. > > # In INVITE handler .. > ... > > # --- SIPP hack --- > if (uri =~ "^sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:5060") { > rewritehostport("2.2.2.2:5060 <http://2.2.2.2:5060>"); > route(1); > break; > }; > # ----------------- > > > # In MAIN Route Block > # --------------------- > Nothing changed from 'default SER behaviour' : > > if ((method != "REGISTER") && (method != "OPTIONS")) { > log(1, " Add RR"); > record_route(); > }; > > > if (loose_route()) { > route(1); > break; > }; > > > > > Where is the problem : > It seems that SER doesn't recognize (in the dialog) the ACK sent by > the UAC (Host A), > do does not relay it to the UAS. The UAS continues to send '200 > OK'... so I can't make it > to have a 'full call setup simulation senario'. > > Call Flow : > > HOST A (UAC) SER HOST B (UAS) > -----------> (1) > INVITE > <----------- (2) > 100 Trying > --------------> (3) > INVITE > <------------- (4) > 180 Ringing > <----------- (5) > 180 Ringing > <------------- (6) > 200 OK > <----------- (7) > 200 OK > -----------> (8) ACK > > <------------- (9) > 200 OK > -----------> (10) ACK > .... > .... > > The first ACK (8) from UAC to SER doesn't relayed to UAS, > so UAS keeps sending '200 OK'... > > > This ACK doesn't go through the 'loose_route()' block because SER thinks > that this ACK is not in the dialog. > Even if I add the following code in MAIN route block, > SER insists to absorb this ACK request. > ... > } else if (method == "ACK") { > # ACK mesgs --> route[1] > log(1," * ACK -- not in the DIALOG --"); > route(1); > break; > } else if ... > > > > Do you find something wrong in SER conf ? > or do you have any idea why this happening ? > > > thank you > Kostas > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Sipp-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sipp-users
