Hi
A follow up question on a almost one year old case. t_cancel_callid() is still working good. However, a new calling scenario towards the same system just got me another issue. The Cancel request generated by t_cancel_callid() is not accepted by this old legacy system. I have not yet confirmed it, but it looks like the only difference form other Cancel request is that t_cancel_callid() generates a Cancel with a Contact header. Should the Contact header really be inside the Cancel request? Is it possible to disable it? Running Kamailio 5.3.6 Best Regards, Lars ________________________________ From: Lars Olsson <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2019 4:10 PM To: Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [SR-Users] Rewrite BYE to Cancel Hi all, I just want to report back. Daniels suggestion worked great! Thanks a lot for your input. On the "incorrect" BYE request, trigger a cancel for the INVITE with t_cancel_callid() using call-id and cseq of the INVITE request. (Cseq was not the same on INVITE and BYE). Then reply with 200 OK to the BYE message. Cheers, Lars ________________________________ From: Daniel-Constantin Mierla <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, October 25, 2019 1:32 PM To: Lars Olsson <[email protected]>; Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [SR-Users] Rewrite BYE to Cancel Run with debug=3 and see if you get other log messages from t_cancel_callid() execution. Cheers, Daniel On 25.10.19 13:09, Lars Olsson wrote: Sorry for forgetting to that result: ERROR: <script>: Failed to cancel transaction ________________________________ From: Daniel-Constantin Mierla <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]> Sent: Friday, October 25, 2019 1:08 PM To: Lars Olsson <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>; Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [SR-Users] Rewrite BYE to Cancel Hello, which of the xlog messages were printed? Cheers, Daniel On 25.10.19 13:04, Lars Olsson wrote: Hi Daniel, Thanks for your reply. Used the following script for testing: if (is_method("BYE")) { xlog("CALLID: $ci\n"); xlog("CSEQ: $cs\n"); if (t_cancel_callid("$ci", "$cs", "0")) { xlog("Transaction cancelled\n"); } else { xlog("Failed to cancel transaction\n"); } send_reply("200", "OK"); exit; } No cancel message was triggered. Best Regards, Lars ________________________________ From: Daniel-Constantin Mierla <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]> Sent: Friday, October 25, 2019 12:32 PM To: Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>; Lars Olsson <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [SR-Users] Rewrite BYE to Cancel Hello, actually sending BYE for an in-progress call setup (initial INVITE routed, but 200ok was not received yet) is valid from SIP RFC point of view. So it is not really a broken implementation (or, not to put all my money in, it can be, but not because of this kind of BYE). Practically the BYE can be used to terminate a specific branch in a call setup. Think about parallel forking, and many branches start sending back 183. The caller UA can send BYE to some of the branches and let the others wait to complete. The CANCEL has to be used when all the branches should be terminated. If there is a single branch, then the BYE terminates the call in progress, I am not sure what the callee UA should reply to the INVITE. On the other hand, in the very few cases when I saw UAs sending BYE for early call setup, the other side was rejecting it, expecting the cancel. I expect it should work with kamailio to send 200ok for such BYE and then use t_cancel_callid(): https://www.kamailio.org/docs/modules/stable/modules/tmx.html#tmx.f.t_cancel_callid The call-id and cseq values should be the same in the BYE request. Try it and write back if works, I am quite curious about... Cheers, Daniel On 25.10.19 12:17, Lars Olsson wrote: Yes it is a BROKEN behavior from the remote system, unfortunately it can not be changed. Besides this issue, the remote system works as it should. A custom b2bua can for sure resolve this, but perhaps not in a standard way. Question is if it is possible to resolve with Kamailio or if I need to patch SEMS to handle this. Something like this: if ("BYE" && dialog not confirmed) reply back 200 OK cancel other side of dialog As Kamailio can terminate active dialog with sending bye in both directions, I thought that it might be possible to resolve this as well. Hence asking for ideas. Best Regards, Lars ________________________________ From: sr-users <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]> on behalf of Steve Davies <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]> Sent: Friday, October 25, 2019 11:25 AM To: Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [SR-Users] Rewrite BYE to Cancel Hi, I'm normally a bystander. But on this occasion I've got to comment - there are broken SIP implementations, and there are BROKEN ones. Surely there is no hope with this one? If they can't get this right just imagine how many more problems it will have. Steve On Fri, 25 Oct 2019 at 11:19, Lars Olsson <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: hi, I have a Kamailio setup infront of a SIP system that do not handle cancellation of a INVITE correctly. The system sends out a BYE request instead of a Cancel request on non connected dialogs. I am trying to find a way to let Kamailio "translate" the BYE request to a Cancel reqeust for the ongoing INVITE dialog. Alternative if SEMS b2bua can do it, but currently it replies: "not sip-relaying BYE in not connected dlg", and I have not found any obvious way to rewrite it there. Any thoughts. I can not change the behavior of the remote system. Best Regards, Lars _______________________________________________ Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users _______________________________________________ Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users -- Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- www.asipto.com<http://www.asipto.com> www.twitter.com/miconda<http://www.twitter.com/miconda> -- www.linkedin.com/in/miconda<http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda> Kamailio Advanced Training, Oct 21-23, 2019, Berlin, Germany -- https://asipto.com/u/kat -- Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- www.asipto.com<http://www.asipto.com> www.twitter.com/miconda<http://www.twitter.com/miconda> -- www.linkedin.com/in/miconda<http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda> Kamailio Advanced Training, Oct 21-23, 2019, Berlin, Germany -- https://asipto.com/u/kat -- Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- www.asipto.com<http://www.asipto.com> www.twitter.com/miconda<http://www.twitter.com/miconda> -- www.linkedin.com/in/miconda<http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda> Kamailio Advanced Training, Oct 21-23, 2019, Berlin, Germany -- https://asipto.com/u/kat
_______________________________________________ Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List [email protected] https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
