Hello,
the BYE does not have information about the public ip of the nat router
behind which is located the android device.
With the default config of kamailio, that should be stored as alias
parameter in the contact header.
You should send the full signaling from first invite to the bye for the
case that does not work, in order to see if something goes wrong there
and what party is responsible for that.
You should use ngrep to take the trace on kamailio server, because it
easy to read and captures the both sides. A sample command would be:
ngrep -d any -qt -W byline port 5060
Of course you can replace IP addresses with suggestive tokens.
Cheers,
Daniel
On 8/29/13 2:00 PM, Helena Garcia-Nieto wrote:
Hello,
Thanks in advanced for the help. I am absolutely new with kamailio and
still struggling through silly problems so please forgive me if the
solutions is so obvious.
I have a network like
Devices --àKamailio --àpstn GW
The PSTN GW is more or less out of my reach for changing the behaivour.
As devices I have xlite, 3cx and an android app
Kamailio is on version 4.0.2
I have problems with the calls to PSTN, When A is the Android app the
server is not able to relay the Bye coming from the pstngw so the
android app does not disconnect the call. This do not happened when A
are xlite or 3cx. Bye is correctly sent to the PSTNGW if it comes from
the android app. For calls inside the kamailio server there is no
problem with the devices and all the byes are sent ok.
When I call from the android app I have to drop some of the parameters
on the Contact header because the pstngw do not like them and drop the
call otherwise (responding with a 500 IRP error) I droped the
parameters using:
subst('/^Contact: (.*)>.*$/Contact: \1>/i'); #delete the parameter
that is anoying pstnGW on contact header
I also change request uri deleting the 00, but I do this modification
on all the calls. I have tried without this ruri modification and the
resoult is the same xlite ok android ko so I do not think that is
affecting.
subst_uri('/^sip:00(.*)/sip:\1/i'); # delete the 00
Searching on the kamailio log I found that in the android call:
DEBUG:
tm [t_lookup.c:1395]: t_newtran(): DEBUG: t_newtran: msg id=113 ,
global msg id=112 , T on entrance=0xffffffffffffffff
DEBUG:
tm [t_lookup.c:534]: t_lookup_request(): t_lookup_request: start
searching: hash=30121, isACK=0
DEBUG:
tm [t_lookup.c:492]: matching_3261(): DEBUG: RFC3261 transaction
matching failed
DEBUG:
tm [t_lookup.c:716]: t_lookup_request(): DEBUG: t_lookup_request: no
transaction found
DEBUG:
tm [t_hooks.c:374]: run_reqin_callbacks_internal(): DBG:
trans=0x7f60cadc8d10, callback type 1, id 0 entered
While on the xlite call I can see
tm [t_lookup.c:1395]: t_newtran(): DEBUG: t_newtran: msg id=116 ,
global msg id=115 , T on entrance=(nil)
tm [t_lookup.c:534]: t_lookup_request(): t_lookup_request: start
searching: hash=64449, isACK=0
tm [t_lookup.c:477]: matching_3261(): DEBUG: RFC3261 transaction
matched, tid=1cbf.617b985b6620c855b501dfbfced5f7a4.0
tm [t_lookup.c:733]: t_lookup_request(): DEBUG: t_lookup_request:
transaction found (T=0x7f60cadb2510)
When processing the BYE. So I'm thinking that the problem is that
Kamailio do not know where to send it. I'm not sure that is the problem.
I've checked and tags and session information seem ok to me, so I do
not understand what is wrong with the Bye so the server cannot find
where it should be sent to.
I attached a trace with both calls first xlite and then android
This is the Bye on the XLite call
Frame 59: 788 bytes on wire (6304 bits), 788 bytes captured (6304 bits)
Ethernet II, Src: Cisco_67:50:00 (macAdd), Dst: FujitsuT_80:7d:d8 (macAdd)
Internet Protocol Version 4, Src: PSTNGWIP (PSTNGWIP), Dst: ServerIP
(ServerIP)
User Datagram Protocol, Src Port: sip (5060), Dst Port: ServerPort
(ServerPort)
Session Initiation Protocol (BYE)
Request-Line: BYE
sip:XliteAnumber@publicXliteIP:55838;transport=tcp SIP/2.0
Method: BYE
Request-URI: sip:XliteAnumber@publicXliteIP:55838;transport=tcp
[Resent Packet: False]
Message Header
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
PSTNGWIP;branch=z9hG4bK5d4.f93633a612aca237ad1f5c341c1b2986.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
PSTNGWIP:5061;branch=z9hG4bK-fat3ctwlimdw3lkb;rport=5061
Route: <sip:ServerIP:ServerPort;r2=on;lr=on;nat=yes>
Route: <sip:ServerIP:ServerPort;transport=tcp;r2=on;lr=on;nat=yes>
Max-Forwards: 16
From: 00Bnumber
<sip:00Bnumber@ServerIP:ServerPort>;tag=eihmt4yopie2j4fq.i
To: <sip:XliteAnumber@ServerIP:ServerPort>;tag=2b8f312e
Call-ID: NGZlMDU3OWE2YjM1ZGQ1OTEyM2NiNmI0YjM1MjA0YTg
CSeq: 515 BYE
Sequence Number: 515
Method: BYE
Contact: Anonymous <sip:PSTNGWIP:5061>
User-Agent: Sippy
cisco-GUID: 521708479-278139363-3214082078-3387785402
h323-conf-id: 521708479-278139363-3214082078-3387785402
and that one is the one on the Android one:
Frame 115: 766 bytes on wire (6128 bits), 766 bytes captured (6128 bits)
Ethernet II, Src: Cisco_67:50:00 (macAdd), Dst: FujitsuT_80:7d:d8 (macAdd)
Internet Protocol Version 4, Src: PSTNGWIP (PSTNGWIP), Dst: ServerIP
(ServerIP)
User Datagram Protocol, Src Port: sip (5060), Dst Port: ServerPort
(ServerPort)
Session Initiation Protocol (BYE)
Request-Line: BYE
sip:AndroidAnumber@PrivateAndroidIP:35986;transport=tcp SIP/2.0
Method: BYE
Request-URI:
sip:AndroidAnumber@PrivateAndroidIP:35986;transport=tcp
[Resent Packet: False]
Message Header
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
PSTNGWIP;branch=z9hG4bKf0a2.679a023eeebfc2b9acae8c683386146f.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
PSTNGWIP:5061;branch=z9hG4bK-ge57vxpelnqy57yg;rport=5061
Route: <sip:ServerIP:ServerPort;r2=on;lr=on;nat=yes>
Route: <sip:ServerIP:ServerPort;transport=tcp;r2=on;lr=on;nat=yes>
Max-Forwards: 16
From: <sip:00Bnumber@ServerIP:ServerPort>;tag=2yapycnnrb7yjgwj.i
To: <sip:AndroidAnumber@ServerIP:ServerPort>;tag=652340227
Call-ID: fa8e5892-e88f-fd9b-8f99-0545ac8e9e8e
CSeq: 438 BYE
Sequence Number: 438
Method: BYE
Contact: Anonymous <sip:PSTNGWIP:5061>
User-Agent: Sippy
cisco-GUID: 521708482-278139363-3214082078-3387785402
h323-conf-id: 521708482-278139363-3214082078-3387785402
Both Devices are behind NAT.
I hope I explained my problem correctly but do not hesitate to ask any
other thing.
Thanks in advanced
Helena
_______________________________________________
SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list
sr-users@lists.sip-router.org
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 Trainings - Berlin, Oct 21-24; Miami, Nov 11-13, 2013
- more details about Kamailio trainings at http://www.asipto.com -
_______________________________________________
SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list
sr-users@lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users