Hello, Apologies for the delay, I will update tonight and report back. Thanks, Spencer
On Sep 7, 2012, at 1:34 AM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote: > Hello, > > can you apply attached patch to the rtpproxy module and send again the log > messages from kamailio? No need for siptrace, I just want to see if the to > tag is detected properly and the number of paramters for rtpproxy command > from kamailio point of view. > > Cheers, > Daniel > > On 9/6/12 8:44 AM, Spencer Thomason wrote: >> Hi Daniel, >> >> I collected logs and a trace exhibiting this behavior. >> >> The logs are here: >> http://pastebin.com/1rQwLmx9 >> >> The trace is here: >> http://pastebin.com/sXVL69tD >> >> Thanks, >> Spencer >> >> >> On Aug 31, 2012, at 1:33 PM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote: >> >>> Hello, >>> >>> the command to rtpproxy for the reply seem to miss the to-tag, can you grab >>> the ngrep trace for such call and the logs for processing it? Having the >>> logs from a different call than the ngrep trace you posted on pastebin is >>> not helping much. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Daniel >>> >>> >>> On 8/31/12 6:49 PM, Spencer Thomason wrote: >>>> Yes, >>>> >>>> The request (re-INVITE): >>>> >>>> Aug 30 22:38:59 sip /usr/sbin/kamailio[25778]: ERROR: *** cfgtrace: >>>> c=[/etc/kamailio/kamailio.cfg] l=471 a=25 n=rtpproxy_manage >>>> Aug 30 22:38:59 sip rtpproxy[25671]: DBUG:handle_command: received command >>>> "25778_11 U [email protected] 184.170.249.3 32122 >>>> 3ae1Dvgr5vmeg;1 199857477;1" >>>> Aug 30 22:38:59 sip rtpproxy[25671]: INFO:handle_command: adding strong >>>> flag to existing session, new=1/0/0 >>>> Aug 30 22:38:59 sip rtpproxy[25671]: INFO:handle_command: lookup on ports >>>> 55324/46010, session timer restarted >>>> Aug 30 22:38:59 sip rtpproxy[25671]: DBUG:doreply: sending reply "25778_11 >>>> 46010 184.170.249.8#012" >>>> >>>> >>>> The reply: >>>> >>>> Aug 30 22:38:59 sip /usr/sbin/kamailio[25778]: ERROR: *** cfgtrace: >>>> c=[/etc/kamailio/kamailio.cfg] l=471 a=25 n=rtpproxy_manage >>>> Aug 30 22:38:59 sip rtpproxy[25671]: DBUG:handle_command: received command >>>> "25778_12 L [email protected] 71.104.248.48 6016 >>>> 3ae1Dvgr5vmeg;1" >>>> Aug 30 22:38:59 sip rtpproxy[25671]: INFO:handle_command: lookup request >>>> failed: session [email protected], tags 3ae1Dvgr5vmeg;1/NONE >>>> not found >>>> Aug 30 22:38:59 sip rtpproxy[25671]: DBUG:doreply: sending reply "25778_12 >>>> 0 184.170.249.8#012" >>>> Aug 30 22:38:59 sip /usr/sbin/kamailio[25778]: ERROR: rtpproxy >>>> [rtpproxy.c:2260]: incorrect port 0 in reply from rtp proxy >>>> >>>> >>>> I was able to get it working correctly by reworking the config like the >>>> 3.1 branch by using rtpproxy_offer instead of force_rtp_proxy. When I >>>> attempted to use rtpproxy_answer in the reply route, I was getting the >>>> same lookup request failed error from rtpproxy. In the request and reply, >>>> the tags change. Could this be the reason that the session lookup is >>>> failing? If I use rtpproxy_offer in both the request and reply, >>>> everything works correctly. Is there any consequence to doing this? >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Spencer >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 31.08.2012 01:53, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hello, >>>>> >>>>> On 8/31/12 3:41 AM, Spencer Thomason wrote: >>>>>> Hi Daniel, I can confirm that rtpproxy_manage is called. See: >>>>>> http://pastebin.com/ZVXjK9ry I'm seeing ERROR: rtpproxy >>>>>> [rtpproxy.c:2260]: incorrect port 0 in reply from rtp proxy in the logs >>>>>> when processing the 200OK in the re-INVITE. I've included a debug level >>>>>> log from rtpproxy in the log as well. >>>>> this can happen because the rtpproxy was not engaged for the request, >>>>> but only for the reply. >>>>> >>>>> As you say, the logs are for the 200OK, what about the ones for request, >>>>> is rtpproxy called there? >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> Daniel >>>>>> When handling the re-INVITE there is: • Aug 30 22:38:59 sip >>>>>> /usr/sbin/kamailio[25778]: ERROR: *** cfgtrace: >>>>>> c=[/etc/kamailio/kamailio.cfg] l=471 a=25 n=rtpproxy_manage • Aug 30 >>>>>> 22:38:59 sip rtpproxy[25671]: DBUG:handle_command: received command >>>>>> "25778_11 U [email protected] 184.170.249.3 32122 >>>>>> 3ae1Dvgr5vmeg;1 199857477;1" • Aug 30 22:38:59 sip rtpproxy[25671]: >>>>>> INFO:handle_command: adding strong flag to existing session, new=1/0/0 • >>>>>> Aug 30 22:38:59 sip rtpproxy[25671]: INFO:handle_command: lookup on >>>>>> ports 55324/46010, session timer restarted • Aug 30 22:38:59 sip >>>>>> rtpproxy[25671]: DBUG:doreply: sending reply "25778_11 46010 >>>>>> 184.170.249.8#012" but the 200OK: • Aug 30 22:38:59 sip >>>>>> /usr/sbin/kamailio[25778]: ERROR: *** cfgtrace: >>>>>> c=[/etc/kamailio/kamailio.cfg] l=471 a=25 n=rtpproxy_manage • Aug 30 >>>>>> 22:38:59 sip rtpproxy[25671]: DBUG:handle_command: received command >>>>>> "25778_12 L [email protected] 71.104.248.48 6016 >>>>>> 3ae1Dvgr5vmeg;1" • Aug 30 22:38:59 sip rtpproxy[25671]: >>>>>> INFO:handle_command: lookup request failed: session >>>>>> [email protected], tags 3ae1Dvgr5vmeg;1/NONE not found • >>>>>> Aug 30 22:38:59 sip rtpproxy[25671]: DBUG:doreply: sending reply >>>>>> "25778_12 0 184.170.249.8#012" • Aug 30 22:38:59 sip >>>>>> /usr/sbin/kamailio[25778]: ERROR: rtpproxy [rtpproxy.c:2260]: incorrect >>>>>> port 0 in reply from rtp proxy I'm not familiar with the rtpproxy >>>>>> commands to know why it cannot locate the session. Thanks for your >>>>>> assistance, Spencer On Aug 30, 2012, at 11:59 AM, Daniel-Constantin >>>>>> Mierla wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hello, I could not spot by quick eye checking what could happen there, >>>>>>> the best is to use the debugger module with cfg_trace parameter set and >>>>>>> check the execution trace to see what actions of the configuration file >>>>>>> are executed and be sure the rtpproxy is called or not. You can post >>>>>>> the execution trace here if you need further help with it. Cheers, >>>>>>> Daniel On 8/30/12 7:40 PM, Spencer Thomason wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Daniel, Thanks for your help with this. Here is a trace: >>>>>>>> http://pastebin.com/pXeFbwBz I see the nat=yes parameter added to the >>>>>>>> Route header. I've posted the script here: >>>>>>>> http://pastebin.com/2qwHYHvjForgive my ignorance, I can't tell what >>>>>>>> I'm doing wrong. Thanks! Spencer On Aug 30, 2012, at 12:51 AM, >>>>>>>> Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hello, if your config it is based on the default one, the Route >>>>>>>>> header for within dialog requests is marked by a parameter, nat=yes, >>>>>>>>> that is used to decide whether to do rtpproxy or not. So, if you have >>>>>>>>> a custom config, check the default one for the nat traversal handling >>>>>>>>> part. Cheers, Daniel On 8/30/12 12:39 AM, Spencer Thomason wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hello, I'm using Kamailio 3.2.4 for NAT traversal using >>>>>>>>>> rtpproxy_manage() in a largely stock script. Everything works great >>>>>>>>>> until the far end (on a public ip) sends a t.38 re-INVITE. The 200OK >>>>>>>>>> from the NATed UAC then doesn't trigger rtpproxy and the private IP >>>>>>>>>> in the sdp causes the fax to fail. Any help handling these >>>>>>>>>> re-INVITEs would be greatly appreciated. I'm happy to post traces if >>>>>>>>>> that helps describe the situation. The network topology looks like >>>>>>>>>> this: NATed UAC -> Kamailio on a public IP -> UAS on a public IP >>>>>>>>>> Thanks in advance, Spencer Connected by DROID on Verizon Wireless >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ SIP Express Router >>>>>>>>>> (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list >>>>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>>> http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users >>>>>>>>> -- Daniel-Constantin Mierla - http://www.asipto.com >>>>>>>>> http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda >>>>>>>>> Kamailio Advanced Training, Berlin, Nov 5-8, 2012 - >>>>>>>>> http://asipto.com/u/kat >>>>>>> -- Daniel-Constantin Mierla - http://www.asipto.com >>>>>>> http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda >>>>>>> Kamailio Advanced Training, Berlin, Nov 5-8, 2012 - >>>>>>> http://asipto.com/u/kat >>>>>> _______________________________________________ SIP Express Router (SER) >>>>>> and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list >>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>> http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users >>> >>> -- >>> Daniel-Constantin Mierla - http://www.asipto.com >>> http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda >>> Kamailio Advanced Training, Berlin, Nov 5-8, 2012 - http://asipto.com/u/kat >> > > -- > Daniel-Constantin Mierla - http://www.asipto.com > http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda > Kamailio Advanced Training, Berlin, Nov 5-8, 2012 - http://asipto.com/u/kat > Kamailio Advanced Training, Miami, USA, Nov 12-14, 2012 - > http://asipto.com/u/katu > <rtpproxy-dgb.patch>
_______________________________________________ SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
