reSIProcate

Mailing Lists

Source Code

Google Search:



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

Re: [reSIProcate-users] register Record route is taken into account?

Record routes on registers would be ignored.  Registers need Path headers instead for that functionality.  I believe it is the service route header that is causing your invite to get routed to that domain.  It is stored in the UserProfile after registering and will get used on the invite, if you use the same UserProfile.  I think you might be able to clear it out before sending the invite to avoid this behavior.

Scott

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 17, 2017, at 8:45 AM, Francesco Lamonica <alienpenguin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hello Scott,

here is my register request and following response from ClearWater IMS

--- REQUEST ---

REGISTER sip:example.com;transport=UDP SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 77.72.27.3:39342;branch=z9hG4bK-524287-1---01078486d9a42261
Max-Forwards: 70
To: <sip:6505550692@xxxxxxxxxxx;transport=UDP>
From: <sip:6505550692@xxxxxxxxxxx;transport=UDP>;tag=7b428a63
Call-ID: v1qsG2Dy4SeDiwHFxlRNZA..
CSeq: 324 REGISTER
Expires: 3600
Allow: INVITE, ACK, CANCEL, BYE, NOTIFY, REFER, MESSAGE, OPTIONS, INFO, SUBSCRIBE
Supported: replaces, norefersub, extended-refer, timer, outbound, path, X-cisco-serviceuri
User-Agent: Z 3.9.32144 r32121
Authorization: Digest username="6505550692@xxxxxxxxxxx",realm="example.com",nonce="1b49b1a22fdb9bc8",uri="sip:example.com;transport=UDP",response="518cfa0d9af3c915cc7132f1fb7f7268",cnonce="8ad835f735e4f6df934c9c21f9d51bf3",nc=00000143,qop=auth,algorithm=MD5,opaque="4b8f980205de7088"
Allow-Events: presence, kpml
Content-Length: 0


--- RESPONSE ---

SIP/2.0 200 OK
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 77.72.27.3:39342;received=10.0.2.2;branch=z9hG4bK-524287-1---01078486d9a42261
Call-ID: v1qsG2Dy4SeDiwHFxlRNZA..
From: <sip:6505550692@xxxxxxxxxxx>;tag=7b428a63
To: <sip:6505550692@xxxxxxxxxxx>;tag=z9hG4bKPj-onuqBBylPVQAv0GpgIDl3M9MfOjUfb.
CSeq: 324 REGISTER
Supported: outbound
Require: outbound
P-Associated-URI: <sip:6505550692@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Length:  0


As you can see in the response there are both Record-Route and Service-Route headers that point to scscf.cw-aio that is an internal address of the vm that is not resolvable.
When i try to send an invite to: 6505550692@xxxxxxxxxxx using the p-scscf provided by the ClearWater VM (used for the register request as well)
Resiprocate tries to dns-resolve scscf.cw-aio failing and returns 503.
Now, my question is, why is Resiprocate trying to reach that address?

1) if it is for Record-Route header, then it could be a bug, since RFC3261 says that such header coming in a response to register should not be taken for following requests.
2) if it is for Service-Route header (RFC 3608) where it says: 
       This service route has the form of a Route header
   field that the registering UA may use to send requests through the
   service proxy selected by the registrar.
then i'd like to know how i can avoid this optional behaviour


thanks for all your help :)

On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 2:07 PM, <slgodin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Francesco,

Can you please post a log snippet that shows what you are saying?. It's too difficult to guess what's going on without seeing the messaging.

Scott

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jan 17, 2017, at 4:39 AM, Francesco Lamonica <alienpenguin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
> i am experimenting a dum application with the Clearwater IMS project.
> What i see from a wireshark trace is that the IMS responds to my register request with a response including a Record-route header.
> Now, this Record-route points to an internal component of the IMS image (i am using the All-in-one image) scscf.cw-aio (that if i am not mistaken is acting as the IMS registrar)
> Now if i try to send an INVITE, resiprocate tries to ask DNS entry for scscf.cw-aio and since, obviously, such an entry does not exist fails with 503.
> But my point is... why is resiprocate trying to resolve it in the first place? As stated in rfc3261 REGISTERs do not establish a dialog and any possible Record-route headers should be ignored (section 10.2)
>
> Do you have any suggestion / hints / explanantion for this behaviour?
>
> thanks
> _______________________________________________
> resiprocate-users mailing list
> resiprocate-users@resiprocate.org
> List Archive: http://list.resiprocate.org/archive/resiprocate-users/