[OpenSIPS-Users] Truncated Branch in Via
Bogdan-Andrei Iancu
bogdan at opensips.org
Fri Jul 15 11:25:30 CEST 2016
Hi Rahul,
I just did the backport to all maintained versions. For the moment the
fix will be present in all all nightly builds / rpms, until the next
minor releases.
Thanks and regards,
Bogdan-Andrei Iancu
OpenSIPS Founder and Developer
http://www.opensips-solutions.com
On 14.07.2016 21:17, Gupta, Rahul wrote:
>
> Hi Bogdan, thanks for the prompt response and providing the fix. We
> have tested it and it works fine. Are you going to put this in any build ?
>
> *Thanks*
>
> *Rahul Gupta***
>
> Systems Architect
>
> *T*+1 732-690-3845 |*E* rahul.gupta at ipc.com <mailto:rahul.gupta at ipc.com>
>
> cid:image006.jpg at 01D1940F.3E021840
>
> *From:*Bogdan-Andrei Iancu [mailto:bogdan at opensips.org]
> *Sent:* Monday, July 11, 2016 12:42 PM
> *To:* OpenSIPS users mailling list; Gupta, Rahul
> *Subject:* Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] Truncated Branch in Via
>
> Hi Rahul,
>
> There is a fix available for extra testing - see :
> https://github.com/OpenSIPS/opensips/commit/482e643469b351d12418ff54c96beee7b27dca94
>
> please give it a try and let me know if it is solving the problem for
> you too.
>
> Regards,
>
> Bogdan-Andrei Iancu
> OpenSIPS Founder and Developer
> http://www.opensips-solutions.com
>
> On 08.07.2016 17:30, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote:
>
> Hi Rahul,
>
> Indeed, that is a good point here, thanks for bring it up. Let me
> investigate the code a bit and I will update you.
>
> Regards,
>
> Bogdan-Andrei Iancu
>
> OpenSIPS Founder and Developer
>
> http://www.opensips-solutions.com
>
> On 07.07.2016 22:01, Gupta, Rahul wrote:
>
> Hi Bogdan, so the problem we are facing is the endpoint has a
> new branch however the difference in the branch value is
> *AFTER* the MAX_BRANCH_PARAM_LEN, the highlighted text.Since
> opensips is copying the partial branch which is same as the
> previous Via and thus our SIP stack (OCCAS) is sending back
> 401 Unauthorized for both thinking it’s a retransmit.
>
> This is also in line with RFC3261. Shouldn’t it copy the
> entire Via to make sure it’s different from previous Message ?
>
> *REGISTER 1*
>
> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
> 10.204.70.156:5060;branch=z9hG4bK1c68e33e-848e-412a-9137-4fb065a7b7eb_0efbfc5e_11391
>
> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
> 10.205.236.44:5060;branch=z9hG4bK1c68e33e-848e-412a-9137-4fb065a7b7eb_0efbfc5e_113915620064228_MTAuMTIuMy4xMQ
>
> *REGISTER 2*
>
> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
> 10.204.70.156:5060;branch=z9hG4bK1c68e33e-848e-412a-9137-4fb065a7b7eb_0efbfc5e_11391
>
> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
> 10.205.236.44:5060;branch=z9hG4bK1c68e33e-848e-412a-9137-4fb065a7b7eb_0efbfc5e_113915656050004_MTAuMTIuMy4xMQ
>
> *Thanks*
>
> *Rahul Gupta*
>
> Systems Architect
>
> *T*+1 732-690-3845 |*E* rahul.gupta at ipc.com
> <mailto:rahul.gupta at ipc.com>
>
> cid:image006.jpg at 01D1940F.3E021840
>
> *From:*Bogdan-Andrei Iancu [mailto:bogdan at opensips.org]
> *Sent:* Thursday, July 07, 2016 4:43 AM
> *To:* Gupta, Rahul
> *Cc:* Elliott, Ray; users at lists.opensips.org
> <mailto:users at lists.opensips.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] Truncated Branch in Via
>
> Hi Rahul,
>
> The received VIA hdr (with the .44 IP) is properly preserved
> when forwarding (in the outbound message).
>
> The VIA hdr added by OpenSIPS ( .156 IP) is a completely new
> VIA and its branch value is completely independent from the
> branch of other VIA hdrs.
>
> Why do they look the same ? The RFC3261 says that for
> stateless fwd (when basically there is no transaction, so no
> branch value), to avoid populating its VIA with ";branch=0" ,
> the proxy may "copy" and use a branch value from an older VIA
> (a received VIA) - keep in mind it does not say to copy it
> entirely or part. So, OpenSIPS copies a MAX_BRANCH_PARAM_LEN
> length string from the previous branch param.
>
> Everything is correct and legal (from RFC perspective).
>
> PS: if you would use t_relay() instead of forward() - doing
> statefull proxy -, you will see that the branch in the VIA
> added by OpenSIPS will be completly different from the value
> in the previous VIA.
>
> Best regards,
>
>
> Bogdan-Andrei Iancu
>
> OpenSIPS Founder and Developer
>
> http://www.opensips-solutions.com
>
> On 07.07.2016 03:42, Gupta, Rahul wrote:
>
> Hi Bogdan,
>
> Here is a Ethernet trace (pcap) file that has a successful
> and an unsuccessful registration.
>
> Frames 1-8 illustrate the successful case with Frames 2
> and 6 show how opensips adds an extra VIA header that has
> a full VIA;branch
>
> Frame:2
>
> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
> 10.204.70.156:5060;branch=z9hG4bK-c45d6-2ff0ce63-4583dc45-6bd144f8
>
> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
> 10.204.45.122:5060;branch=z9hG4bK-c45d6-2ff0ce63-4583dc45-6bd144f8
>
> Frames 9-16 illustrate the unsuccessful case where Frames
> 10 and 14 show how opensips adds an extra VIA header that
> has a truncated branch.
>
> Frame 10:
>
> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
> 10.204.70.156:5060;branch=z9hG4bK1c68e33e-848e-412a-9137-4fb065a7b7eb_0efbfc5e_11391
>
> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
> 10.205.236.44:5060;branch=z9hG4bK1c68e33e-848e-412a-9137-4fb065a7b7eb_0efbfc5e_113915620064228_MTAuMTIuMy4xMQ
>
> *Thanks*
>
> *Rahul Gupta*
>
> Systems Architect
>
> *T*+1 732-690-3845 |*E* rahul.gupta at ipc.com
> <mailto:rahul.gupta at ipc.com>
>
> cid:image006.jpg at 01D1940F.3E021840
>
> *From:*Bogdan-Andrei Iancu [mailto:bogdan at opensips.org]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 06, 2016 5:38 AM
> *To:* OpenSIPS users mailling list
> *Cc:* Elliott, Ray; Gupta, Rahul
> *Subject:* Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] Truncated Branch in Via
>
> Hi Rahul,
>
> That define is used to calculate the the max VIA len when
> OpenSIPS is generating its own VIA headers. That max len
> does not impact the VIA headers which were received.
>
> I do not understand exactly (in your example) what's the
> flow of that VIA header. If you want, send me off-list the
> pcap/ngrep showing the SIP package (before and after
> OpenSIPS) and how it is affected.
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Bogdan-Andrei Iancu
>
> OpenSIPS Founder and Developer
>
> http://www.opensips-solutions.com
>
> On 05.07.2016 20:57, Gupta, Rahul wrote:
>
> We are using opensips 1.11.5 as a stateless proxy and
> seeing a truncated Branch in Via for my REGISTER
> message. After some code digging, the MAX length is
> calculated using the following formula and seems like
> its truncating the branch after 55 characters. This is
> causing the REGISTER to fail in our case. Is there a
> config level solution to this ?
>
> *#define MAX_BRANCH_PARAM_LEN (MCOOKIE_LEN+8
> /*!<int2hex*/ + 1 /*sep*/ + \*
>
> *MD5_LEN + 1 /*!<sep*/ + 8 /*int2hex*/ + \*
>
> *1 /*extra space, needed by t_calc_branch*/)*
>
> truncated from opensips àVia: SIP/2.0/UDP
> XX.XX.XX.XX:5060;branch=z9hG4bK0fddbbc9-1487-4755-a0b3-0c319155b8c3_0efbfc5e_11160
>
>
> Via from EndPoint àVia: SIP/2.0/UDP
> XX.XX.XX.XX:5060;branch=z9hG4bK0fddbbc9-1487-4755-a0b3-0c319155b8c3_0efbfc5e_1116078308924346_MTAuMTIuMy4xMQ
>
>
> *Thanks*
>
> *Rahul Gupta*
>
> DISCLAIMER: This e-mail may contain information that
> is confidential, privileged or otherwise protected
> from disclosure. If you are not an intended recipient
> of this e-mail, do not duplicate or redistribute it by
> any means. Please delete it and any attachments and
> notify the sender that you have received it in error.
> Unintended recipients are prohibited from taking
> action on the basis of information in this e-mail.
> E-mail messages may contain computer viruses or other
> defects, may not be accurately replicated on other
> systems, or may be intercepted, deleted or interfered
> with without the knowledge of the sender or the
> intended recipient. If you are not comfortable with
> the risks associated with e-mail messages, you may
> decide not to use e-mail to communicate with IPC. IPC
> reserves the right, to the extent and under
> circumstances permitted by applicable law, to retain,
> monitor and intercept e-mail messages to and from its
> systems.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Users mailing list
>
> Users at lists.opensips.org <mailto:Users at lists.opensips.org>
>
> http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Users mailing list
>
> Users at lists.opensips.org <mailto:Users at lists.opensips.org>
>
> http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensips.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20160715/30513876/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2905 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.opensips.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20160715/30513876/attachment-0001.jpeg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 6175 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.opensips.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20160715/30513876/attachment-0001.png>
More information about the Users
mailing list