[OpenSIPS-Users] Topology_Hiding adding extra VIA header

[SamyGo]

Hi Again,

Is this related to the "*Work Still in progress"* related to
Topology_hiding module as mentioned here at changelog:

http://opensips.org/pub/opensips/2.2.2/ChangeLog

2015-10-14  Vlad Paiu  <vladpaiu at opensips dot org>
	* [c0f25f7] :

	Added Re-INVITE in-dialog pinging support
	Controlled via the new "R" and "r" flags available to create_dialog()
as well as the new reinvite_ping_interval module param

	Work still in progress :
		- Properly handle late negociation between endpoints
		- Ensure SDP persistency ( DB and BIN replication )
		- Ensure compatibility with topology hiding ( currently the Contact
header will be bogus when doing TH )
		- Whitelist or blacklist logic ( terminate call for 481 and 408
timeout, or terminate call for anything else other than 200 and 491 )
		- Extensive testing needed for race conditions specified in rfc 5407


The module paramns in my opensips.cfg look like this.

loadmodule "topology_hiding.so"
modparam("topology_hiding", "force_dialog",
1)modparam("topology_hiding", "th_callid_prefix", "myvoip_box1")
modparam("topology_hiding", "th_passed_contact_uri_params", "account_id")
modparam("topology_hiding", "th_passed_contact_params",
"+mediabx1.wholevoip.se;device;caller")

Looking for some answers thanks,

Regards,
Sammy


On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 12:19 PM, SamyGo <govoiper at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Razvan,
>
> I just noticed that since Topo hiding function gives error, the calls
> using this do not show any changes in CallID or Contact or any other
> details , seems like topohiding is not doing it's job for such calls
> anymore. !
>
> Kindly let me know of anything further required to get this resolved.
>
> Thanks,
> Sammy.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 1:30 PM, SamyGo <govoiper at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Razvan,
>>
>>
>> Here is the requested data.
>>
>>
>>
>> *INITIAL INVITE: *Via: SIP/2.0/TLS 123.123.212.123:5061;branch=z9
>> hG4bK442.8373b213.0;i=35f5
>>
>>
>> *200 OK from the B party as received by OpenSIPS:*
>> Via: SIP/2.0/TLS 118.151.101.64:5061;branch=z9hG4bK442.9a584727.0;i=11
>>
>>
>>
>> *200 OK as sent out by OpenSIPS:*
>> Via: SIP/2.0/TLS 123.123.212.123:5061;received=
>> 123.123.212.123;rport=48664;branch=z9hG4bK442.8373b213.0;i=35f5
>> Via: SIP/2.0/TLS 123.123.212.123:5061;received=
>> 123.123.212.123;rport=48664;branch=z9hG4bK442.8373b213.0;i=35f5
>>
>>
>> Here is the portion of debug log where the destination Answers the call
>> and topology Hiding restore VIA twice.
>>
>> http://pastebin.com/z7pt7cwM
>>
>>
>> Thanks for your response and time looking at this for me.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Sammy.
>>
>>
>> On Nov 14, 2016 3:49 AM, "Răzvan Crainea" <razvan at opensips.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi, Samy!
>>>
>>> Can you post on pastebin debugging logs related to this call? Also, can
>>> you also post the Via headers of the initial INVITE and for the 200 OK
>>> received by OpenSIPS?
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> Răzvan Crainea
>>> OpenSIPS Solutionswww.opensips-solutions.com
>>>
>>> On 11/12/2016 12:33 AM, SamyGo wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I'm using OpenSIPS 2.2.1 version and I'm facing a weird situation where
>>> OpenSIPS is adding a duplicated VIA header to the 200 OK, This only happens
>>> when I've topology_hiding() engaged into the call.
>>>
>>> The scenario is very simple; two users making call to each other on the
>>> same OpenSIPS but with topology_hiding(). As a consequence of this double
>>> VIA the caller device doesn't trigger the ACK and hence we don't get media
>>> stream established between devices.
>>>
>>>
>>> *WITH TOPOLOGYHIDING:*
>>> SIP/2.0 200 OK
>>> Via: SIP/2.0/TLS 10.1.10.51:59231;received=7X.X
>>> X.XX.X7;rport=59231;branch=z9hG4bK-607165482-63
>>> Via: SIP/2.0/TLS 10.1.10.51:59231;received=7X.XX.XX.X7
>>> ;rport=59231;branch=z9hG4bK-607165482-63
>>> CSeq: 1 INVITE
>>> ...
>>>
>>>
>>> *WITHOUT TOPOHIDING: *
>>> SIP/2.0 200 OK
>>> Via: SIP/2.0/TLS 10.1.10.51:59223;received=7X.XX.XX.X7
>>> ;rport=59223;branch=z9hG4bK-607166212-58
>>> CSeq: 1 INVITE
>>>
>>>
>>> The only difference between the two scenarios is the function
>>> topology_hiding(); is commented out.
>>>
>>> It seems like a bug to me, can anyone guide me here validate this.
>>>
>>> * OpenSIPS Version:*
>>> version: opensips 2.2.1 (x86_64/linux)
>>> flags: STATS: On, DISABLE_NAGLE, USE_MCAST, SHM_MMAP, PKG_MALLOC,
>>> F_MALLOC, FAST_LOCK-ADAPTIVE_WAIT
>>> ADAPTIVE_WAIT_LOOPS=1024, MAX_RECV_BUFFER_SIZE 262144, MAX_LISTEN 16,
>>> MAX_URI_SIZE 1024, BUF_SIZE 65535
>>> poll method support: poll, epoll_lt, epoll_et, sigio_rt, select.
>>> git revision: 68ace2e
>>> main.c compiled on 18:34:37 Sep 28 2016 with gcc 4.8
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Sammy
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Users mailing listUsers at lists.opensips.orghttp://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Users mailing list
>>> 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/20161115/3a4b3e3c/attachment.htm>