Hi, Sammy!
Most likely that WIP refers to the re-invites generated for pinging
purposes. Are you using the "R/r" flags for the create_dialog() function?
Best regards,
Răzvan Crainea
OpenSIPS Core Developer
http://www.opensips-solutions.com
On 11/15/2016 09:56 PM, SamyGo wrote:
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
<http://mediabx1.wholevoip.se>;device;caller")
Looking for some answers thanks,
Regards,
Sammy
On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 12:19 PM, SamyGo <govoi...@gmail.com
<mailto:govoi...@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 <govoi...@gmail.com
<mailto:govoi...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Razvan,
Here is the requested data.
*INITIAL INVITE:
*Via: SIP/2.0/TLS
123.123.212.123:5061;branch=z9hG4bK442.8373b213.0;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" <raz...@opensips.org
<mailto:raz...@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 Solutions
www.opensips-solutions.com <http://www.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.XX.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 list
Users@lists.opensips.org <mailto:Users@lists.opensips.org>
http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
<http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users>
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
Users@lists.opensips.org <mailto:Users@lists.opensips.org>
http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
<http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users>
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
Users@lists.opensips.org
http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
Users@lists.opensips.org
http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
