Seeing the error messages stack I see that the error occurs first during
the loose_route() processing. Did some other method changed the r-uri
before? Maybe the config file will help to see what could be wrong - the
snippet from main route till loose_route() should do it.
To be sure that the r-uri as it comes from upstream is valid or not, add
the following at the beginning of the main route block:
xlog("received request uri is [$ru]\n");
The xlog function parses the r-uri to be sure it is valid.
Cheers,
Daniel
On 07/25/06 14:39, Klaus Darilion wrote:
That lok sindeed very strange. HAve you tried other TLS clients (SNOM,
eyebeam, minisip)?
regards
klaus
Stephen Paterson wrote:
Hi all,
I'm posting this again due to lack of response. If this is the wrong
forum for this kind of query, please could someone let me know of a
list that would be more appropriate. After further investigation and
successful testing against other UAs I am less inclined to believe
that the problem lies with our TLS implementation, rather that the
problem lies with OpenSER.
Regards
Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Paterson Sent: 21 July 2006 15:52
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: Error parsing URI's using TLS
Hi all,
I've just started using OpenSER to test our SIP implementation and
have encountered a problem with TLS early on. I can register with the
server without any problem but my calls fail. The logging from the
server shows:
Jul 21 15:40:54 sip-fedora3 ./openser[14880]: tls_init:
verify_callback: preverify is good: verify return: 1
Jul 21 15:40:54 sip-fedora3 ./openser[14880]: tls_init:
verify_callback: depth = 0
Jul 21 15:40:54 sip-fedora3 ./openser[14880]: tls_init:
verify_callback: preverify is good: verify return: 1
Jul 21 15:40:54 sip-fedora3 ./openser[14881]: tls_init:
verify_callback: depth = 1
Jul 21 15:40:54 sip-fedora3 ./openser[14881]: tls_init:
verify_callback: preverify is good: verify return: 1
Jul 21 15:40:54 sip-fedora3 ./openser[14881]: tls_init:
verify_callback: depth = 0
Jul 21 15:40:54 sip-fedora3 ./openser[14881]: tls_init:
verify_callback: preverify is good: verify return: 1
Jul 21 15:40:54 sip-fedora3 ./openser[14880]: ERROR: parse_uri: uri
too short: <sip:> (4)
Jul 21 15:40:54 sip-fedora3 ./openser[14880]: ERROR:
parse_sip_msg_uri: bad uri <sip:>
Jul 21 15:40:54 sip-fedora3 ./openser[14880]: loose_route: Error
while parsing Request URI
Jul 21 15:40:54 sip-fedora3 ./openser[14880]: ERROR: parse_uri: uri
too short: <sip:> (4)
Jul 21 15:40:54 sip-fedora3 ./openser[14880]: ERROR:
parse_sip_msg_uri: bad uri <sip:>
Jul 21 15:40:54 sip-fedora3 ./openser[14880]: WARNING:
do_action:error in expression
Jul 21 15:40:54 sip-fedora3 ./openser[14880]: ERROR: parse_uri: uri
too short: <sip:> (4)
Jul 21 15:40:54 sip-fedora3 ./openser[14880]: ERROR:
parse_sip_msg_uri: bad uri <sip:>
Jul 21 15:40:54 sip-fedora3 ./openser[14880]: WARNING:
do_action:error in expression
This would suggest that my (for example) From header contains a URI
of: <sip:>! Not overly useful you might say. Now, the same INVITE
without encryption works fine with OpenSER (using either TCP or UDP)
and a serialisation of the INVITE immediately before encryption
(shown below) shows the correct URIs in all the right places.
INVITE sips:[EMAIL PROTECTED] SIP/2.0
From: steve <sips:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;tag=ACU-6975-c47afeff
To: steve <sips:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Contact: <sips:10.202.200.143:5061>
Call-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CSeq: 26984 INVITE
Content-Length: 281
Content-Type: application/sdp
Allow: INVITE
Allow: ACK
Allow: BYE
Allow: CANCEL
Allow: OPTIONS
Allow: NOTIFY
Allow: REFER
Allow: PRACK
Allow: INFO
Allow: UPDATE
Accept: application/sdp
Accept: application/isup
Accept: application/qsig
Accept: multipart/mixed
Accept-Encoding: identity
Accept-Language: en
Supported: replaces
Supported: 100rel
Via: SIP/2.0/TLS
10.202.200.143:5061;branch=z9hG4bKeb10b5f6-18c6-11db-bff7-971e76d819bf
Max-Forwards: 70
Route: <sips:10.202.200.132:5061;lr>
... SDP omitted
For the moment I am pretty much assuming that this is a problem with
our implementation as it is still under development but I can't work
out what. 2 questions:
1. Does anyone have any general thoughts as to what might be going
wrong?
2. Is it possible to get more logging from OpenSER that might shed
some light?
Regards
Steve
Steve Paterson
Software Engineer
Aculab
Tel: +44 (0) 1908 273866
Fax: +44 (0) 1908 273801
Email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Website: http://www.aculab.com
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
[email protected]
http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
[email protected]
http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
[email protected]
http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
