HI Jeff, Just a wild guess - looking at the RURI and ROUTE hdrs, I would say your opensips is doing strict routing and not loose routing - this may happen when the IP in RURI is recognized as local SIP domain....
So, have you added "64.111.17.11" IP as alias in script or in domain table ? if so, please remove it! Regards, Bogdan Jeff Kronlage wrote: > Please also note this only happens on reinvites - the initial invite is > fine. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jeff Kronlage > Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 10:33 PM > To: OpenSIPS users mailling list > Subject: Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] NAT fixup question > > Bogdan, > > I wish I could post something useful. I've been tinkering with this all > evening, the catch is that one of our sip providers does things a tad > unusual and I have a number of normalization procedures in place that > make it hard to output something useful for this. > > I can provide this information - > > The inbound packet is: > 22:19:32.479151 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 249, id 1369, offset 0, flags [none], > proto UDP (17), length 539) 64.111.16.10.45463 > 64.YYY.XX.XX.5060: SIP, > length: 511 > ACK sip:[email protected]:5060 SIP/2.0 > Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.1.105:5060;branch=z9hG4bK-c6f3cdea > From: > <sip:[email protected]>;tag=5d371768e81ef5fci0 > To: <sip:[email protected]>;tag=3442594C-21D0 > Call-ID: [email protected] > CSeq: 101 ACK > Max-Forwards: 70 > Route: > <sip:64.YYY.XX.XX;lr=on;ftag=3442594C-21D0;did=03f.4363e5f6> > Contact: 719358ZZZZ <sip:[email protected]:5060> > User-Agent: Linksys/SPA2102-3.3.6 > Content-Length: 0 > > After I receive this packet and loose_route() is called, the RURI > (specifically the value of $ru, as confirmed via xlog) is set to: > sip:64.YYY.XX.XX;lr=on;ftag=3444FCF0-2256;did=10a.beb781a3 > (note this is identical to the "Route" field - not sure how I missed > that prior to your mentioning it) > > A debug value of 4 produces: > DBG:rr:after_loose: Topmost route URI: > 'sip:64.YYY.XX.XX;lr=on;ftag=33F412AC-1CD1;did=a35.17b53e66' is me > (not sure if that is of any use) > > I'm certain this is too vague to produce a solid answer, but any idea > where I might look next? > > Thanks, > > Jeff > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bogdan-Andrei > Iancu > Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 9:21 PM > To: OpenSIPS users mailling list > Subject: Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] NAT fixup question > > RURI has nothing to do with the VIA part.. > > Also RURI is not to be changed during loose_route(), only if you have a > strict router proxy in front of you....maybe you can post the inbound > and outbound request (to see how the loose_route() is done) > > Regards, > Bogdan > > Jeff Kronlage wrote: > >> The RURI. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Jeff >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bogdan-Andrei >> Iancu >> Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 9:13 PM >> To: OpenSIPS users mailling list >> Subject: Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] NAT fixup question >> >> Jeff, >> >> the VIA hdr does not require mangling - the addition of the "received" >> > > >> param is enough to handle nat issues. So the VIA you posted is correct >> > > >> form NAT traversal point of view. >> >> Regarding the user part of the URI - what URI you are talking about? >> RURI ? TO / FROM uri? Contact URI ? >> >> Regards, >> Bogdan >> >> Jeff Kronlage wrote: >> >> >>> Thanks Bogdan, >>> >>> An unrelated question: >>> >>> Does anything special need to be done with "via" statements when >>> implementing NAT transversal? >>> >>> Fix_nated_contact() takes care of the contact field for me, but I >>> >>> >> still >> >> >>> end up with: >>> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP >>> >>> >>> > 192.168.1.105:5060;rport=42080;received=64.YYY.XX.XX;branch=z9hG4bK-e4e5 > >> >> >>> cd84 >>> >>> I'm having some random problems with the user part of the URI >>> > randomly > >>> vanishing after I call loose_route() when NAT is involved, and I'm >>> thinking these are related. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> -- >>> Jeff Kronlage >>> Senior IT Engineer, Data102 >>> 102 South Tejon, Suite #1250 >>> Colorado Springs, CO 80903 >>> (719) 387-0000 x 1335 direct >>> (719) 578-8844 fax >>> [email protected] / http://www.data102.com >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: [email protected] >>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bogdan-Andrei >>> Iancu >>> Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 4:07 PM >>> To: OpenSIPS users mailling list >>> Subject: Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] Additional info on potential >>> >>> >> registration >> >> >>> issue >>> >>> so DB ONLY mode......simply ignore the warning (see its meaning in my >>> > > >>> previous post) . The contacts will still be shared, but the socket >>> information discarded. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Bogdan >>> >>> Jeff Kronlage wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> Usrloc mode is 3. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Jeff Kronlage >>>> Senior IT Engineer, Data102 >>>> 102 South Tejon, Suite #1250 >>>> Colorado Springs, CO 80903 >>>> (719) 387-0000 x 1335 direct >>>> (719) 578-8844 fax >>>> [email protected] / http://www.data102.com >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: [email protected] >>>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bogdan-Andrei >>>> Iancu >>>> Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 11:32 AM >>>> To: OpenSIPS users mailling list >>>> Subject: Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] Additional info on potential >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> registration >>> >>> >>> >>>> issue >>>> >>>> So, this is the problem - each opensips instance loads only the >>>> >>>> >> usrloc >> >> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> records that have the a local socket corresponding to that instance. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> In >>> >>> >>> >>>> other words, if the record was saved by the other instance, opensips >>>> > > >>>> will not load it. >>>> >>>> what db_mode do you use for usrloc? >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Bogdan >>>> >>>> Jeff Kronlage wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Yes, shared location table over multiple servers. >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: [email protected] >>>>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >>>>> > Bogdan-Andrei > >>>>> Iancu >>>>> Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2009 10:33 PM >>>>> To: OpenSIPS users mailling list >>>>> Subject: Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] Additional info on potential >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> registration >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> issue >>>>> >>>>> Hi Jeff, >>>>> >>>>> Do you use a shared location table (via multiple registrar servers) >>>>> >>>>> >> ? >> >> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Bogdan >>>>> >>>>> Jeff Kronlage wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> I'm getting this over and over in my syslog: >>>>>> >>>>>> WARNING:usrloc:get_all_db_ucontacts: non-local socket >>>>>> <udp:HI.DDE.N.12:5060>...ignoring >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> >>>>>> Jeff >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ Users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
