Hi.
I said:
> You can see capture's message 11 that the [routes] are not correctly
> translated
> by bob/server/answer (they come disordered), and that in message 16 they just
> don't show at all, even if they are expected from the xml content of
> alice/client/invite.
>
> Furthermore there is a second problem, namely the "assign_to" which
> is also not
> working in the last SIPp versions (at least in these scenarios). In the same
> message 11 you can see how the Rseq appears blank, although it got a value
> assigned. As well as in 16, where RAck is also blank.
It seems that I didn't send a real capture file, but a text file, sorry. I will
now try to make clear what are these bugs from SIPp, here a extract from the
.cap file:
01: 3061->4060, INVITE sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 10.12.107.42:3061;branch=z9hG4bK-18922-1-0
Route: <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:6060;lr>
To: <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "alice" <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;tag=1
Call-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Max-Forwards: 70
Cseq: 1 INVITE
Contact: <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:3061>
Content-Type: application/sdp
...
Content-Length: 666
02: 4060->3061, SIP/2.0 100 trying
03: 4060->6060, INVITE sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] SIP/2.0
04: 6060->4060, SIP/2.0 100 trying
05: 6060->6060, INVITE sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] SIP/2.0
06: 6060->6060, SIP/2.0 100 trying
07: 6060->4060, INVITE sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] SIP/2.0
08: 4060->6060, SIP/2.0 100 trying
09: 4060->3062, INVITE sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] SIP/2.0
Record-Route: <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:4060;lr>
Record-Route: <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:6060;lr>
Record-Route: <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:6060;lr>
Record-Route: <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:4060;lr>
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 10.12.107.42:4060;branch=z9hG4bK002.34055205.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
10.12.107.42:6060;received=10.12.107.42;rport=6060;branch=z9hG4bK002.3adbb115.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 10.12.107.42:6060;branch=z9hG4bK002.2adbb115.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 10.12.107.42:4060;branch=z9hG4bK002.24055205.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
10.12.107.42:3061;received=10.12.107.42;rport=3061;branch=z9hG4bK-18922-1-0
To: <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "alice" <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;tag=1
Call-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Max-Forwards: 13
Cseq: 1 INVITE
Contact: <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:3061>
Content-Type: application/sdp
...
Content-Length: 666
10: 3062->4060, SIP/2.0 100 trying
11: 3062->4060, SIP/2.0 183 Session Progress
Call-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cseq: 1 INVITE
From: "alice" <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;tag=1
To: <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;tag=1
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 10.12.107.42:4060;branch=z9hG4bK002.34055205.0,
SIP/2.0/UDP
10.12.107.42:6060;received=10.12.107.42;rport=6060;branch=z9hG4bK002.3adbb115.0,
SIP/2.0/UDP 10.12.107.42:6060;branch=z9hG4bK002.2adbb115.0, SIP/2.0/UDP
10.12.107
Route: <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:6060;lr>,
<sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:6060;lr>,
<sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:4060;lr>,<sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:4060;lr>
Contact: <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:3062>
P-Access-Network-Info: IEEE-802.11
User-Agent: UA bob IMS Lab FHL-St.Ma.
Allow: INVITE,ACK,CANCEL,BYE,MESSAGE,PRACK,UPDATE
Require: 100rel, precondition
RSeq:
Content-Type: application/sdp
Content-Length: 732
12: 4060->6060, SIP/2.0 183 Session Progress
13: 6060->6060, SIP/2.0 183 Session Progress
14: 6060->4060, SIP/2.0 183 Session Progress
15: 4060->3061, SIP/2.0 183 Session Progress
16: 3061->4060, PRACK sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:3062 SIP/2.0
Call-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cseq: 2 PRACK
From: "alice" <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;tag=1
To: <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;tag=1
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 10.12.107.42:3061;branch=z9hG4bK-18922-1-3
Max-Forwards: 70
Contact: <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:3061>
P-Access-Network-Info: IEEE-802.11
User-Agent: UA alice IMS Lab FHL-St.Ma.
RAck:
Content-Type: application/sdp
Require: precondition,sec-agree
Proxy-Require: sec-agree
Content-Length: 676
17: 4060->3062, PRACK sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:3062 SIP/2.0
18: ICMP (Destination unreachable, Port unreachable) 4060->3062, PRACK
sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:3062 SIP/2.0
So, you can see that in frame 11 the Routes come disordered (they are
Route: <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:6060;lr>,
<sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:6060;lr>,
<sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:4060;lr>,<sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:4060;lr>
instead of
Route: <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:4060;lr>,
<sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:6060;lr>, <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:6060;lr>,
<sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:4060;lr>
) and that RSeq is empty, when I have assigned it a value at answer.xml:
<recv request="INVITE" rrs="true" crlf="true">
<action>
<assign assign_to="3" value="822835890" />
</action>
</recv>
<send>
SIP/2.0 100 Trying
</send>
<send>
SIP/2.0 183 Session Progress
[routes]
RSeq: [$3]
</send>
Likewise, in frame 16 the RAck is empty, even when I have assigned it a value at
invite.xml:
<recv response="183" rrs="true">
<action>
<ereg regexp=".*" search_in="hdr" header="RSeq: " assign_to="1" />
<ereg regexp="(.*) INVITE" search_in="hdr" header="CSeq: " assign_to="2,3"
/>
</action>
</recv>
<send>
PRACK [next_url] SIP/2.0
[routes]
RAck: [$1] [$2]
</send>
I have simplified the text, you can find the complete files in my previous
message.
Aren't these to be considered bugs?
Miguel Gomez
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
_______________________________________________
Sipp-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sipp-users
