Setting tm.wt_timer to a very low value (e.g. 200 ms) does provide a hack
around this behaviour, but it doesn't seem to me that this is the correct
solution.
│AC
172.24.0.9:39777 172.24.0.7:5060 │K
──────────┬───────── ──────────┬───────── │si
19:38:44.386913 │ INVITE (SDP) │ │p:
+0.001550 │ ──────────────────────────> │ │10
19:38:44.388463 │ 100 trying -- your call is │ │0@
+0.003336 │ <────────────────────────── │ │si
19:38:44.391799 │ 407 Proxy Authentication R │ │p-
+0.000234 │ <────────────────────────── │ │pr
19:38:44.392033 │ ACK │ │ox
+0.201070 │ ──────────────────────────> │ │y-
19:38:44.593103 │ INVITE (SDP) │ │di
+0.004226 │ ──────────────────────────> │ │ge
19:38:44.597329 │ 100 trying -- your call is │ │st
+0.003063 │ <────────────────────────── │ │-a
19:38:44.600392 │ 407 Proxy Authentication R │ │ut
+0.000489 │ <────────────────────────── │ │h:
19:38:44.600881 │ ACK │ │50
│ ──────────────────────────> │ │60
│ │ │ S
The real question is why the negative ACK for the first transaction doesn't
seem to be having the intended effect in this scenario.
-- Alex
> On Dec 15, 2022, at 2:21 PM, Alex Balashov <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Adding further to this, it seems to me the real problem is that I can't use
> t_release() in an async resume route, because it's internally structured to
> take place inside a failure_route context. If I could, I think that would rid
> me of the first transaction after I send the challenge and call 'exit'.
>
>> On Dec 15, 2022, at 12:42 PM, Alex Balashov <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> As a test, I tried to put the auth_challenge() in the request_route before
>> any async suspension, and in that case works fine.
>>
>> The issue is definitely with the way auth_challenge() issued from _within_
>> an async resume route (failure_route context) bears upon transaction state.
>>
>> -- Alex
>>
>>> On Dec 15, 2022, at 12:23 PM, Alex Balashov <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Well, the difference seems pretty clear. In a scenario with an auth
>>> challenge and no subsequent INVITE+credentials, the negative ACK is matched:
>>>
>>> 4(54) DEBUG: <core> [core/receive.c:389]: receive_msg(): --- received sip
>>> message - request - call-id: [01eed151-4234-4518-9a0e-9b9168f21a3f] - cseq:
>>> [288439 ACK]
>>> 4(54) DEBUG: <core> [core/receive.c:261]: ksr_evrt_pre_routing(): event
>>> route core:pre-routing not defined
>>> 4(54) DEBUG: <core> [core/receive.c:471]: receive_msg(): preparing to run
>>> routing scripts...
>>> 4(54) DEBUG: sl [sl_funcs.c:447]: sl_filter_ACK(): too late to be a local
>>> ACK!
>>> 4(54) DEBUG: <core> [core/parser/parse_hname2.c:301]:
>>> parse_sip_header_name(): parsed header name [Content-Length] type 12
>>> 4(54) DEBUG: <core> [core/parser/msg_parser.c:187]: get_hdr_field():
>>> content_length=0
>>> 4(54) DEBUG: <core> [core/parser/msg_parser.c:91]: get_hdr_field(): found
>>> end of header
>>> 4(54) DEBUG: maxfwd [mf_funcs.c:55]: is_maxfwd_present(): max_forwards
>>> header not found!
>>> 4(54) DEBUG: siputils [checks.c:123]: has_totag(): totag found
>>> 4(54) DEBUG: rr [loose.c:108]: find_first_route(): No Route headers found
>>> 4(54) DEBUG: rr [loose.c:1006]: loose_route_mode(): There is no Route HF
>>> 4(54) DEBUG: tm [t_lookup.c:1053]: t_check_msg(): msg (0xffffa72f7088)
>>> id=14/54 global id=13/54 T start=0
>>> 4(54) DEBUG: tm [t_lookup.c:497]: t_lookup_request(): start searching:
>>> hash=42311, isACK=1
>>> 4(54) DEBUG: tm [t_lookup.c:439]: matching_3261(): RFC3261 transaction
>>> matched, tid=SG.ceb57d44-7388-4739-9a86-d44ea04d974d
>>> 4(54) DEBUG: tm [t_lookup.c:692]: t_lookup_request(): transaction found
>>> (T=0xffffa2f428a8)
>>> 4(54) DEBUG: tm [t_lookup.c:1122]: t_check_msg(): msg (0xffffa72f7088)
>>> id=14/54 global id=14/54 T end=0xffffa2f428a8
>>> 4(54) DEBUG: tm [t_reply.c:1763]: cleanup_uac_timers(): RETR/FR timers reset
>>> 4(54) DEBUG: tm [t_funcs.c:120]: put_on_wait(): put T [0xffffa2f428a8] on
>>> wait
>>> 4(54) DEBUG: <core> [core/timer.c:557]: timer_add_safe(): timer_add called
>>> on an active timer 0xffffa2f42930 (0xffffa2d05d08, 0xffffa2d05d08), flags
>>> 201
>>> 4(54) DEBUG: tm [t_funcs.c:143]: put_on_wait(): transaction 0xffffa2f428a8
>>> already on wait
>>>
>>> However, in a scenario with an auth challenge with subsequent
>>> INVITE+credentials, the same negative ACK is not matched to a known
>>> transaction.
>>>
>>> 2(52) DEBUG: <core> [core/receive.c:389]: receive_msg(): --- received sip
>>> message - request - call-id: [895a7051-3e0c-410a-88ea-4bad7a1c21b6] - cseq:
>>> [939189 ACK]
>>> 2(52) DEBUG: <core> [core/receive.c:261]: ksr_evrt_pre_routing(): event
>>> route core:pre-routing not defined
>>> 2(52) DEBUG: <core> [core/receive.c:471]: receive_msg(): preparing to run
>>> routing scripts...
>>> 2(52) DEBUG: sl [sl_funcs.c:447]: sl_filter_ACK(): too late to be a local
>>> ACK!
>>> 2(52) DEBUG: <core> [core/parser/parse_hname2.c:301]:
>>> parse_sip_header_name(): parsed header name [Content-Length] type 12
>>> 2(52) DEBUG: <core> [core/parser/msg_parser.c:187]: get_hdr_field():
>>> content_length=0
>>> 2(52) DEBUG: <core> [core/parser/msg_parser.c:91]: get_hdr_field(): found
>>> end of header
>>> 2(52) DEBUG: maxfwd [mf_funcs.c:55]: is_maxfwd_present(): max_forwards
>>> header not found!
>>> 2(52) DEBUG: siputils [checks.c:123]: has_totag(): totag found
>>> 2(52) DEBUG: rr [loose.c:108]: find_first_route(): No Route headers found
>>> 2(52) DEBUG: rr [loose.c:1006]: loose_route_mode(): There is no Route HF
>>> 2(52) DEBUG: tm [t_lookup.c:1053]: t_check_msg(): msg (0xffffa72f7088)
>>> id=19/52 global id=18/52 T start=0
>>> 2(52) DEBUG: tm [t_lookup.c:497]: t_lookup_request(): start searching:
>>> hash=21251, isACK=1
>>> 2(52) DEBUG: tm [t_lookup.c:455]: matching_3261(): RFC3261 transaction
>>> matching failed - via branch
>>> [z9hG4bKSG.c52861b7-2535-4080-84f5-2819c4169843]
>>> 2(52) DEBUG: tm [t_lookup.c:675]: t_lookup_request(): no transaction found
>>>
>>> This makes sense intuitively; the auth_challenge(), and resulting 407
>>> challenge, should have ended the old transaction, so the negative ACK
>>> should just be absorbed.
>>>
>>> But in that case, why does the 407 keep being retransmitted?
>>>
>>> -- Alex
>>>
>>>> On Dec 15, 2022, at 12:00 PM, Alex Balashov <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Henning,
>>>>
>>>>> On Dec 15, 2022, at 11:51 AM, Henning Westerholt <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Alex,
>>>>> it might not help you much, but recently I was implementing a similar
>>>>> structure in one larger migration project, and it seems to work fine.
>>>>> I am not using any special flags for the challenge etc..
>>>>> It’s basically like this (pseudo-code)
>>>>> route{
>>>>> if no auth user -> auth_challenge()
>>>>> else -> http_async_query(API, AUTH)
>>>>> }
>>>>> route[AUTH] {
>>>>> get API result for password
>>>>> if API failure -> auth_challenge()
>>>>> else -> pv_auth_check(..)
>>>>> route(next steps)
>>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, that's more or less what I've got, except the first part.
>>>>
>>>> I don't auth_challenge() every request because some requests are allowed
>>>> by static IP, and I don't know whether to auth_challenge() them unless I
>>>> am already in the async resume context.
>>>>
>>>> I have eliminated the independent credentials query. At this point my
>>>> process is more:
>>>>
>>>> request_route {
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> http_async_query(API, RESUME)
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> route[RESUME] {
>>>> if(method == "INVITE") {
>>>> if(has_auth_attrib()) {
>>>> if(!pv_auth_check(...)) {
>>>> auth_challenge("realm", "1");
>>>> exit;
>>>> }
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> # Get more routing info.
>>>> http_async_query(API, RESUME2)
>>>> return;
>>>> }
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> route[RESUME2} {
>>>> t_relay() etc
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> -- Alex
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Alex Balashov | Principal | Evariste Systems LLC
>>>>
>>>> Tel: +1-706-510-6800 / +1-800-250-5920 (toll-free)
>>>> Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/, http://www.csrpswitch.com/
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Alex Balashov | Principal | Evariste Systems LLC
>>>
>>> Tel: +1-706-510-6800 / +1-800-250-5920 (toll-free)
>>> Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/, http://www.csrpswitch.com/
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Alex Balashov | Principal | Evariste Systems LLC
>>
>> Tel: +1-706-510-6800 / +1-800-250-5920 (toll-free)
>> Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/, http://www.csrpswitch.com/
>>
>
> --
> Alex Balashov | Principal | Evariste Systems LLC
>
> Tel: +1-706-510-6800 / +1-800-250-5920 (toll-free)
> Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/, http://www.csrpswitch.com/
>
--
Alex Balashov | Principal | Evariste Systems LLC
Tel: +1-706-510-6800 / +1-800-250-5920 (toll-free)
Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/, http://www.csrpswitch.com/
__________________________________________________________
Kamailio - Users Mailing List - Non Commercial Discussions
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Important: keep the mailing list in the recipients, do not reply only to the
sender!
Edit mailing list options or unsubscribe:
