From riaan.maree at gmail.com Fri Jul 2 02:24:07 2010 From: riaan.maree at gmail.com (Riaan Maree) Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2010 11:24:07 +0200 Subject: [B2BUA Users] Problems running Simple B2BUA Message-ID: We?re having trouble with NAT on our network with SIP registrations to an external registrar. I tried installing B2BUA on a server with two network interfaces to solve our problems, but it does not seem to work: Network topography: Internet (PPPoE) <---> (public IP) Debian + Sippy B2BUA (private 192.168.2.6 IP) <---> (192.168.2.0/24) rest of network <---> (192.168.2.X/24) Customer Router (10.0.0.1/29) <---> (10.0.0.X/24) PC?s and Snom/Grandstream SIP phones Steps followed: ? I installed python and python-twisted ? I downloaded and extracted B2BUA ? Tried running ?sudo python b2bua_simple.py ?f ?l 192.168.2.6 ?p 5060 ?n 196.30.136.242?, but it said there?s a problem on b2bua_simple.py line 28 "ImportError: No module named sippy.UA". ? I edited b2bua_simple.py and removed the ?sippy.? part before all the files to include (lines 29 to 34). ? When I ran the command again, it ran without errors. ? I set up a Snom300 handset to register on 192.168.2.6 using the SIP login details of a SIP account that's on 196.30.136.242. ? The phone will not register and gives the following output on B2BUA: 02 Jul 11:04:37.478/GLOBAL/b2bua: RECEIVED message from 192.168.2.18:2049: REGISTER sip:192.168.2.6 SIP/2.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.2.18:2049;branch=z9hG4bK-l4c29qezk1ve;rport From: ;tag=ne9z5v45ta To: Call-ID: 3c26701e7ef1-8vnl19bwgwfj CSeq: 5 REGISTER Max-Forwards: 70 Contact: ;reg-id=1;q=1.0;+sip.instance="";audio;mobility="fixed";duplex="full";description="snom300";actor="principal";events="dialog";methods="INVITE,ACK,CANCEL,BYE,REFER,OPTIONS,NOTIFY,SUBSCRIBE,PRACK,MESSAGE,INFO" User-Agent: snom300/7.3.30 Supported: gruu Allow-Events: dialog X-Real-IP: 10.0.1.237 Expires: 3600 Content-Length: 0 02 Jul 11:04:37.480/GLOBAL/b2bua: SENDING message to 192.168.2.18:2049: SIP/2.0 501 Not Implemented Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.2.18:2049;branch=z9hG4bK-l4c29qezk1ve;rport=2049 From: ;tag=ne9z5v45ta To: ;tag=087743e3e0f28c89885c611f78ca6284 Call-ID: 3c26701e7ef1-8vnl19bwgwfj CSeq: 5 REGISTER Server: Sippy B2BUA (Simple) Content-Length: 0 What?s the reason and what could I do to fix it? We?re also using 2 different outside ITSP?s. Will it work if we run two instances of B2BUA each listening on a different UDP port (ie. 5060 and 5061)? From marco at bungalski.de Fri Jul 2 02:30:17 2010 From: marco at bungalski.de (marco at bungalski.de) Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2010 11:30:17 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [B2BUA Users] Problems running Simple B2BUA Message-ID: <20100702093017.350BF8342BF@server1.t-m-net.de> Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren, leider kann ich Ihre e-mail momentan nicht beantworten / bearbeiten, da ich mich bis einschliesslich 19.07.2010 im Urlaub befinde. In dringenden F?llen wenden Sie sich bitte telefonisch an meine Mitarbeiter unter der Rufnummer 04231 / 776 9999. Mit freundlichen Gr??en Marco Bungalski From marco at bungalski.de Fri Jul 2 02:30:58 2010 From: marco at bungalski.de (marco at bungalski.de) Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2010 11:30:58 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [B2BUA Users] Problems running Simple B2BUA Message-ID: <20100702093058.0B07F8208F5@server1.t-m-net.de> Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren, leider kann ich Ihre e-mail momentan nicht beantworten / bearbeiten, da ich mich bis einschliesslich 19.07.2010 im Urlaub befinde. In dringenden F?llen wenden Sie sich bitte telefonisch an meine Mitarbeiter unter der Rufnummer 04231 / 776 9999. Mit freundlichen Gr??en Marco Bungalski From marco at bungalski.de Fri Jul 2 02:31:42 2010 From: marco at bungalski.de (marco at bungalski.de) Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2010 11:31:42 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [B2BUA Users] Problems running Simple B2BUA Message-ID: <20100702093142.CA9D4831415@server1.t-m-net.de> Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren, leider kann ich Ihre e-mail momentan nicht beantworten / bearbeiten, da ich mich bis einschliesslich 19.07.2010 im Urlaub befinde. In dringenden F?llen wenden Sie sich bitte telefonisch an meine Mitarbeiter unter der Rufnummer 04231 / 776 9999. Mit freundlichen Gr??en Marco Bungalski From marco at bungalski.de Fri Jul 2 02:32:27 2010 From: marco at bungalski.de (marco at bungalski.de) Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2010 11:32:27 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [B2BUA Users] Problems running Simple B2BUA Message-ID: <20100702093227.CB75D833D46@server1.t-m-net.de> Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren, leider kann ich Ihre e-mail momentan nicht beantworten / bearbeiten, da ich mich bis einschliesslich 19.07.2010 im Urlaub befinde. In dringenden F?llen wenden Sie sich bitte telefonisch an meine Mitarbeiter unter der Rufnummer 04231 / 776 9999. Mit freundlichen Gr??en Marco Bungalski From marco at bungalski.de Fri Jul 2 02:33:13 2010 From: marco at bungalski.de (marco at bungalski.de) Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2010 11:33:13 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [B2BUA Users] Problems running Simple B2BUA Message-ID: <20100702093313.4FDA883415F@server1.t-m-net.de> Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren, leider kann ich Ihre e-mail momentan nicht beantworten / bearbeiten, da ich mich bis einschliesslich 19.07.2010 im Urlaub befinde. In dringenden F?llen wenden Sie sich bitte telefonisch an meine Mitarbeiter unter der Rufnummer 04231 / 776 9999. Mit freundlichen Gr??en Marco Bungalski From marco at bungalski.de Fri Jul 2 02:33:57 2010 From: marco at bungalski.de (marco at bungalski.de) Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2010 11:33:57 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [B2BUA Users] Problems running Simple B2BUA Message-ID: <20100702093357.BC587834176@server1.t-m-net.de> Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren, leider kann ich Ihre e-mail momentan nicht beantworten / bearbeiten, da ich mich bis einschliesslich 19.07.2010 im Urlaub befinde. In dringenden F?llen wenden Sie sich bitte telefonisch an meine Mitarbeiter unter der Rufnummer 04231 / 776 9999. Mit freundlichen Gr??en Marco Bungalski From marco at bungalski.de Fri Jul 2 02:34:42 2010 From: marco at bungalski.de (marco at bungalski.de) Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2010 11:34:42 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [B2BUA Users] Problems running Simple B2BUA Message-ID: <20100702093442.5E112828C05@server1.t-m-net.de> Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren, leider kann ich Ihre e-mail momentan nicht beantworten / bearbeiten, da ich mich bis einschliesslich 19.07.2010 im Urlaub befinde. In dringenden F?llen wenden Sie sich bitte telefonisch an meine Mitarbeiter unter der Rufnummer 04231 / 776 9999. Mit freundlichen Gr??en Marco Bungalski From marco at bungalski.de Fri Jul 2 02:35:30 2010 From: marco at bungalski.de (marco at bungalski.de) Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2010 11:35:30 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [B2BUA Users] Problems running Simple B2BUA Message-ID: <20100702093530.6206A8341D6@server1.t-m-net.de> Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren, leider kann ich Ihre e-mail momentan nicht beantworten / bearbeiten, da ich mich bis einschliesslich 19.07.2010 im Urlaub befinde. In dringenden F?llen wenden Sie sich bitte telefonisch an meine Mitarbeiter unter der Rufnummer 04231 / 776 9999. Mit freundlichen Gr??en Marco Bungalski From marco at bungalski.de Fri Jul 2 02:36:16 2010 From: marco at bungalski.de (marco at bungalski.de) Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2010 11:36:16 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [B2BUA Users] Problems running Simple B2BUA Message-ID: <20100702093616.C251E826852@server1.t-m-net.de> Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren, leider kann ich Ihre e-mail momentan nicht beantworten / bearbeiten, da ich mich bis einschliesslich 19.07.2010 im Urlaub befinde. In dringenden F?llen wenden Sie sich bitte telefonisch an meine Mitarbeiter unter der Rufnummer 04231 / 776 9999. Mit freundlichen Gr??en Marco Bungalski From marco at bungalski.de Fri Jul 2 02:37:09 2010 From: marco at bungalski.de (marco at bungalski.de) Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2010 11:37:09 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [B2BUA Users] Problems running Simple B2BUA Message-ID: <20100702093709.9DF008323BB@server1.t-m-net.de> Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren, leider kann ich Ihre e-mail momentan nicht beantworten / bearbeiten, da ich mich bis einschliesslich 19.07.2010 im Urlaub befinde. In dringenden F?llen wenden Sie sich bitte telefonisch an meine Mitarbeiter unter der Rufnummer 04231 / 776 9999. Mit freundlichen Gr??en Marco Bungalski From agranig at sipwise.com Wed Jul 21 14:19:41 2010 From: agranig at sipwise.com (Andreas Granig) Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 23:19:41 +0200 Subject: [B2BUA Users] Parallel forking Message-ID: <4C47646D.6070904@sipwise.com> Hi all, Seems like I've hit a problem regarding forking a call with the latest git version. Here's the scenario: [Proxy1] -> [B2bua] -> [Proxy2] -> [Endpoints] Proxy1 sends INVITE to B2bua, which has a static route to Proxy2, which in turn relays it to Endpoint A. After n seconds of Ringing, Proxy1 cancels the INVITE to A and sends another INVITE via B2bua and Proxy2 to Endpoint B. Now, in some cases the second INVITE to B from Proxy1 (openser-1.3) arrives at the B2bua before the CANCEL for the first INVITE to A, which turns the serial forking into a parallel one from B2bua's point of view. However, B2bua answers with "482 Loop Detected", and in the code comment it says "Different branch on transaction to which no final reply has been sent yet - merge requests". Shouldn't the B2bua create another call leg towards B for the second INVITE with a different R-Uri? Is this the expected behavior, and if so, is there a way to work around that issue with B2bua? Thanks, Andreas -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature Url : http://lists.b2bua.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20100721/953c6649/attachment.pgp From sobomax at sippysoft.com Wed Jul 21 15:33:29 2010 From: sobomax at sippysoft.com (Maxim Sobolev) Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 15:33:29 -0700 Subject: [B2BUA Users] Parallel forking In-Reply-To: <4C47646D.6070904@sipwise.com> References: <4C47646D.6070904@sipwise.com> Message-ID: <4C4775B9.7030206@sippysoft.com> On 7/21/2010 2:19 PM, Andreas Granig wrote: > Seems like I've hit a problem regarding forking a call with the latest > git version. Here's the scenario: > > [Proxy1] -> [B2bua] -> [Proxy2] -> [Endpoints] > > Proxy1 sends INVITE to B2bua, which has a static route to Proxy2, which > in turn relays it to Endpoint A. After n seconds of Ringing, Proxy1 > cancels the INVITE to A and sends another INVITE via B2bua and Proxy2 to > Endpoint B. Now, in some cases the second INVITE to B from Proxy1 > (openser-1.3) arrives at the B2bua before the CANCEL for the first > INVITE to A, which turns the serial forking into a parallel one from > B2bua's point of view. > > However, B2bua answers with "482 Loop Detected", and in the code comment > it says "Different branch on transaction to which no final reply has > been sent yet - merge requests". Shouldn't the B2bua create another call > leg towards B for the second INVITE with a different R-Uri? Is this the > expected behavior, and if so, is there a way to work around that issue > with B2bua? Andreas, This behavior is what RFC3261 requires from the UAS when facing forked call. Technically transaction layer can notify B2BUA core about this condition (arrival of the new INVITE with different branch), so that the B2BUA can emit final response to the first branch and process the second branch accordingly. I don't think that this behavior should be a default one, since it would be essentially make B2BUA non-RFC compliant. If you want we can develop something along the lines for you, either as a custom patch or as an opt-in feature. Contact us at sales at sippysoft.com if you want a quote. Regards, -- Maksym Sobolyev Sippy Software, Inc. Internet Telephony (VoIP) Experts T/F: +1-646-651-1110 Web: http://www.sippysoft.com MSN: sales at sippysoft.com Skype: SippySoft From agranig at sipwise.com Thu Jul 22 05:12:00 2010 From: agranig at sipwise.com (Andreas Granig) Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 14:12:00 +0200 Subject: [B2BUA Users] Parallel forking In-Reply-To: <4C4775B9.7030206@sippysoft.com> References: <4C47646D.6070904@sipwise.com> <4C4775B9.7030206@sippysoft.com> Message-ID: <4C483590.1040705@sipwise.com> Hi Maxim, >> However, B2bua answers with "482 Loop Detected", and in the code comment >> it says "Different branch on transaction to which no final reply has >> been sent yet - merge requests". Shouldn't the B2bua create another call >> leg towards B for the second INVITE with a different R-Uri? Is this the >> expected behavior, and if so, is there a way to work around that issue >> with B2bua? > > This behavior is what RFC3261 requires from the UAS when facing forked > call. Technically transaction layer can notify B2BUA core about this > condition (arrival of the new INVITE with different branch), so that the > B2BUA can emit final response to the first branch and process the second > branch accordingly. I don't think that this behavior should be a default > one, since it would be essentially make B2BUA non-RFC compliant. I understand that RFC3261 says in 8.2.2.2 that only the first INVITE should be processed by a UAS and the rest should be rejected with 482. However, from a practical view of a b2bua, this would in fact eliminate the possibility to do any parallel forking. To be honest, I think RFC3261 really doesn't cover the b2bua use case very well, since it can't always be seen as a simple concatenation of a UAS and a UAC. In my opinion to make this work, the b2bua would need to create a distinct outbound dialog for each inbound branch of INVITEs, and emit CANCELs on the dialogs where it receives CANCELs for branches from inbound (it wouldn't need to - or even must not - cancel other branches based on new inbound branches, but has to wait for the CANCEL of these branches from inbound (the UAS side), or a negative reply from outbound (the UAC side)). At least this applies to the use case of acting like kind of an SBC. > If you want we can develop something along the lines for you, either as > a custom patch or as an opt-in feature. Contact us at > sales at sippysoft.com if you want a quote. I'll get back to you regarding that, since it's pretty unrealistic to send you a patch with such a fundamental change :) I just wanted to make my point clear here, since I disagree with the transaction matching logic in the current implementation, if you see the whole thing from a practical point of view, not only as a pure UAS-UAC construct. Andreas -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 900 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature Url : http://lists.b2bua.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20100722/ea978194/attachment.pgp