[OpenSIPS-Users] multiple Via headers separated by comma

Bogdan-Andrei Iancu bogdan at voice-system.ro
Sun Dec 27 21:19:18 CET 2009


Hi Josip,

plain text dumps are easier to read than the output from the wireshark. 
Anyhow, you posted the wrong messages - I need the BYE and 200 OK 
between opensips and UAS. What you sent here are the messages between 
UAC and opensips (there is only a single VIA hdr there).

Regards,
Bogdan

Josip Djuricic wrote:
> I have attached it, it's from tcpdump, If you want I can catch it with some
> other method?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Josip
>
> Session Initiation Protocol
>     Request-Line: BYE sip:xxx.xxx.xxx.43:5060;transport=UDP SIP/2.0
>         Method: BYE
>         Request-URI: sip:xxx.xxx.xxx.43:5060;transport=UDP
>             Request-URI Host Part: xxx.xxx.xxx.43
>             Request-URI Host Port: 5060
>         [Resent Packet: False]
>     Message Header
>         Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
> xxx.xxx.xxx.137:22225;branch=z9hG4bK390a025bb61a5f010a79a7f549f2d743;rport
>             Transport: UDP
>             Sent-by Address: xxx.xxx.xxx.137
>             Sent-by port: 22225
>             Branch: z9hG4bK390a025bb61a5f010a79a7f549f2d743
>             RPort: rport
>         Max-Forwards: 70
>         From:
> <sip:48521230886 at xxx.xxx.xxx.137>;tag=3776893de6f572f632b05e83485f9dd2
>             SIP from address: sip:48521230886 at xxx.xxx.xxx.137
>                 SIP from address User Part: 48521230886
>                 SIP from address Host Part: xxx.xxx.xxx.137
>             SIP tag: 3776893de6f572f632b05e83485f9dd2
>         To: <sip:48521289383 at xxx.xxx.xxx.137>;tag=6774SIPpTag011
>             SIP to address: sip:48521289383 at xxx.xxx.xxx.137
>                 SIP to address User Part: 48521289383
>                 SIP to address Host Part: xxx.xxx.xxx.137
>             SIP tag: 6774SIPpTag011
>         Call-ID: 1-3241 at xxx.xxx.xxx.41-b2b_1
>         CSeq: 201 BYE
>             Sequence Number: 201
>             Method: BYE
>         Contact: Anonymous <sip:48521230886 at xxx.xxx.xxx.137:22225>
>             Contact Binding: Anonymous
> <sip:48521230886 at xxx.xxx.xxx.137:22225>
>                 URI: Anonymous <sip:48521230886 at xxx.xxx.xxx.137:22225>
>                     SIP Display info: Anonymous 
>                     SIP contact address:
> sip:48521230886 at xxx.xxx.xxx.137:22225
>         User-Agent: Voljatel B2BUA (RADIUS)
>         cisco-GUID: 415033116-94487149-3088500870-2308033284
>             [Expert Info (Note/Undecoded): Unrecognised SIP header
> (cisco-GUID)]
>                 [Message: Unrecognised SIP header (cisco-GUID)]
>                 [Severity level: Note]
>                 [Group: Undecoded]
>         h323-conf-id: 415033116-94487149-3088500870-2308033284
>             [Expert Info (Note/Undecoded): Unrecognised SIP header
> (h323-conf-id)]
>                 [Message: Unrecognised SIP header (h323-conf-id)]
>                 [Severity level: Note]
>                 [Group: Undecoded]
>         Content-Length: 0
>
>
> Session Initiation Protocol
>     Status-Line: SIP/2.0 200 OK
>         Status-Code: 200
>         [Resent Packet: False]
>     Message Header
>         To: <sip:48521289383 at xxx.xxx.xxx.137>;tag=6774SIPpTag011
>             SIP to address: sip:48521289383 at xxx.xxx.xxx.137
>                 SIP to address User Part: 48521289383
>                 SIP to address Host Part: xxx.xxx.xxx.137
>             SIP tag: 6774SIPpTag011
>         From:
> <sip:48521230886 at xxx.xxx.xxx.137>;tag=3776893de6f572f632b05e83485f9dd2
>             SIP from address: sip:48521230886 at xxx.xxx.xxx.137
>                 SIP from address User Part: 48521230886
>                 SIP from address Host Part: xxx.xxx.xxx.137
>             SIP tag: 3776893de6f572f632b05e83485f9dd2
>         Call-ID: 1-3241 at xxx.xxx.xxx.41-b2b_1
>         CSeq: 201 BYE
>             Sequence Number: 201
>             Method: BYE
>         Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
> xxx.xxx.xxx.137:22225;branch=z9hG4bK390a025bb61a5f010a79a7f549f2d743;rport
>             Transport: UDP
>             Sent-by Address: xxx.xxx.xxx.137
>             Sent-by port: 22225
>             Branch: z9hG4bK390a025bb61a5f010a79a7f549f2d743
>             RPort: rport
>         Server: SIPP
>         Content-Length: 0
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: users-bounces at lists.opensips.org
> [mailto:users-bounces at lists.opensips.org] On Behalf Of Bogdan-Andrei Iancu
> Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2009 11:53 AM
> To: OpenSIPS users mailling list
> Subject: Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] multiple Via headers separated by comma
>
> Hi Josip,
>
> Post both the BYE (sent out by opesips) and 200 OK (received by 
> opensips)  in plain text .
>
> Regards,
> Bogdan
>
> Josip Djuricic wrote:
>   
>> Hi Andrew,
>>
>> Thanks very much for your quick answer, I understand that by rfc it is
>> completely valid.
>>
>> What I can't seem to find is why is my last 200 OK from uas not beeing
>> matched against the BYE that opensips forwarded to uas. So after uas sends
>> 200 OK, it keeps receiveing BYE until timeout occurs. It only happens with
>> sipp, if using any other uac everything works as expected. Every other
>> transaction is matched correctly.
>>
>> I'm includig siplog from that last message, with changed ip's.
>>
>> Perhaps you would see this problem more clearly?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Josip
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: users-bounces at lists.opensips.org
>> [mailto:users-bounces at lists.opensips.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Pogrebennyk
>> Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 10:44 AM
>> To: OpenSIPS users mailling list
>> Subject: Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] multiple Via headers separated by comma
>>
>> Josip Djuricic wrote:
>>   
>>     
>>> Transaction is not matched if request is sent with 2 or more multiline
>>>       
> via
>   
>>> headers and response is received with via header in one line separated by
>>> comma?
>>>     
>>>       
>> Josip,
>> This is absolutely legal if multiple values are combined in one line 
>> separated by comma. Ccheck RFC 3261 for multiple header field values 
>> combining.
>>
>> Section 7.3.
>>     [H4.2] also specifies that multiple header fields of the same field
>>     name whose value is a comma-separated list can be combined into one
>>     header field.  That applies to SIP as well, but the specific rule is
>>     different because of the different grammars.  Specifically, any SIP
>>     header whose grammar is of the form
>>
>>        header  =  "header-name" HCOLON header-value *(COMMA header-value)
>>
>>     allows for combining header fields of the same name into a comma-
>>     separated list.  The Contact header field allows a comma-separated
>>     list unless the header field value is "*".
>>
>> Response is matched to request using branch parameter from uppermost Via 
>> header, so I don't know why RFC compliant implementation would have 
>> problems with response matching when Via header is combined.
>>
>>   
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Users mailing list
>> Users at lists.opensips.org
>> http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>>     
>
>
>   


-- 
Bogdan-Andrei Iancu
www.voice-system.ro




More information about the Users mailing list