< Previous by Date Date Index Next by Date >
< Previous in Thread Thread Index Next in Thread >

Re: [reSIProcate] DnsResult blacklistLast,greylistLast question.


    I can see making this configurable, but how is the proxy ending up with a URI for UA2 that did not either have a transport=udp param, or NAPTR set up to only support UDP?

Best regards,
Byron Campen


On 12/24/13 8:06 AM, Sergey Pavlov wrote:
Hi, resiprocate devels.
I just want to return to the topic described in the quoted email below i.e. to the question of separate
transport/target blacklisting. I am colleague of the mail author and I want a clarify a situation
a little bit. The initial schema of SIP communication was following:

UA1  -> Proxy(resiprocate stack) ->UA2

where
1) The Proxy was configured with UDP and TCP transports.
2) UA1 and UA2 used only UDP transport and didn't have TCP support enabled.
3) UA1 sent INVITE with broken To header field
4) UA2 detected malformed To header filed and answered with 500 response without(!) To field
5) The resiprocate detected malformed response and ignored that and UA2 was greylisted on some time.
6) As result all requests targeted to UA2 were sent over TCP during greylist period. However, taking into account
taht UA2 doesn't support TCP we just had a broken signalling during this period of time.

Such behaviour is more or less acceptable in case when UA2 is just end-user UA. But in our case it can
be some vendor gateway or our own B2BUA so we simply face out-of-order condition for large amount of calls.

To put it simply, we have a situation when an unanswered SIP transaction leads to out-of-order service
condition during significant period of time. So the provided patch is aimed to introduce some control
for grey-listing mechanism. Frankly speaking, complete disabling of grey-list functionality also will help
in our case. The question is - is there possibilty to make it without respirocate patching?

--
Best regards,
Sergey Pavlov

> Dear resiprocate devels,
> resiprocate version 1.8.8
>
> I use proxy,built above resip stack. In particular, there are a fiew intermediate proxy servers: N1,N2,N3.

> I've met next issue:
> 1) there is an active session.
> 2) some client starts one more session,sending malformed sip message to proxy1, proxy1
> retransmits that message to Proxy2 and proxy2 responds with 500 Server internal error.
> Proxy1 tries to retransmit that message several times and after the last one it
> penalizes given transport by black listing.
> 3) At the same time session from item1 has not been finished yet. If any participant from
> session1 will send any sip message - TransportSelector will generate TransportFailure or
>TCP transport will be selected if it is configured - as result session1 becomes broken/hung.
>
> I think UAC penalization - is good idea,but proxy penalization leads to undefined behaviour.
>
> Considering this I  would like to ask a few questions,if you don't mind:
> 1) Is it possible to add some exception list to DnsResult::blackListLast/DnsResult::greyListLast stuff?
> 2) Could you please take a look on provided patch,which provides some kind of solution?


_______________________________________________
resiprocate-devel mailing list
resiprocate-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://list.resiprocate.org/mailman/listinfo/resiprocate-devel