ERROR:forward_request: unable to compute branch

All,
 While trying to use openser version 1.2.0 on centos, we
have found that
/forward_request() /function prints out error
*"ERROR:forward_request: unable to compute
branch"*
We noticed this in the case of REGISTER message egressing
out of OpenSER
(using it as a proxy). Unless we are
missing something in the big picture, we suspect that the
code inside
/if (msg->add_to_branch_len == 0)/  should try to compute
the branch
parameter value (branch_builder()) if one is
not found during invokation of get_sl_branch( ).
In the whole code base there is only one invokation of
branch_builder
inside tm modules and we suspect that for case of
message ingress'ing.

If this is a bug, is there already an open ticket/issue for
this ?

Thanks
Gaurav Kulshrehstha



_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
Developenser.org
htt
p://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel

Hi,

are you using t_relay or forward()   / stateful or stateless
?

regards,
bogdan

Gaurav Kulshreshtha wrote:
> All,
>  While trying to use openser version 1.2.0 on centos,
we have found that
> /forward_request() /function prints out error
> *"ERROR:forward_request: unable to compute
branch"*
> We noticed this in the case of REGISTER message
egressing out of OpenSER
> (using it as a proxy). Unless we are
> missing something in the big picture, we suspect that
the code inside
> /if (msg->add_to_branch_len == 0)/  should try to
compute the branch
> parameter value (branch_builder()) if one is
> not found during invokation of get_sl_branch( ).
> In the whole code base there is only one invokation of
branch_builder
> inside tm modules and we suspect that for case of
> message ingress'ing.
>
> If this is a bug, is there already an open ticket/issue
for this ?
>
> Thanks
> Gaurav Kulshrehstha
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Devel mailing list
> Developenser.org
> htt
p://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel
>
>   


_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
Developenser.org
htt
p://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel

I see....could you post the received request? the error
appears only if 
the request has no VIA at all or there was a parsing
error....

regards,
bogdan

Gaurav Kulshreshtha wrote:
> We are making use of forward and the proxy mode is
stateless.
> Gaurav
> Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote:
>   
>> Hi,
>>
>> are you using t_relay or forward()   / stateful or
stateless ?
>>
>> regards,
>> bogdan
>>
>> Gaurav Kulshreshtha wrote:
>>     
>>> All,
>>>  While trying to use openser version 1.2.0 on
centos, we have found that
>>> /forward_request() /function prints out error
>>> *"ERROR:forward_request: unable to compute
branch"*
>>> We noticed this in the case of REGISTER message
egressing out of OpenSER
>>> (using it as a proxy). Unless we are
>>> missing something in the big picture, we
suspect that the code inside
>>> /if (msg->add_to_branch_len == 0)/  should
try to compute the branch
>>> parameter value (branch_builder()) if one is
>>> not found during invokation of get_sl_branch(
).
>>> In the whole code base there is only one
invokation of branch_builder
>>> inside tm modules and we suspect that for case
of
>>> message ingress'ing.
>>>
>>> If this is a bug, is there already an open
ticket/issue for this ?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Gaurav Kulshrehstha
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
_______________________________________________
>>> Devel mailing list
>>> Developenser.org
>>> htt
p://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel
>>>
>>>   
>>>       
>
>
>   


_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
Developenser.org
htt
p://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel

We are making use of forward and the proxy mode is
stateless.
Gaurav
Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote:
> Hi,
>
> are you using t_relay or forward()   / stateful or
stateless ?
>
> regards,
> bogdan
>
> Gaurav Kulshreshtha wrote:
>> All,
>>  While trying to use openser version 1.2.0 on
centos, we have found that
>> /forward_request() /function prints out error
>> *"ERROR:forward_request: unable to compute
branch"*
>> We noticed this in the case of REGISTER message
egressing out of OpenSER
>> (using it as a proxy). Unless we are
>> missing something in the big picture, we suspect
that the code inside
>> /if (msg->add_to_branch_len == 0)/  should try
to compute the branch
>> parameter value (branch_builder()) if one is
>> not found during invokation of get_sl_branch( ).
>> In the whole code base there is only one invokation
of branch_builder
>> inside tm modules and we suspect that for case of
>> message ingress'ing.
>>
>> If this is a bug, is there already an open
ticket/issue for this ?
>>
>> Thanks
>> Gaurav Kulshrehstha
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Devel mailing list
>> Developenser.org
>> htt
p://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel
>>
>>   
>


_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
Developenser.org
htt
p://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel

Hi,

the request is bogus as the VIA hdr has no branch param
which is 
mandatory. In stateless routing, the branch param for the
next VIA is 
build based on the previous VIA, so this trigger the error
you got.

regards,
bogdan

Gaurav Kulshreshtha wrote:
> Here is the packet coming into OpenSER that causes the
problem:
>
> REGISTER sip:abc.com SIP/2.0
> Call-ID: 526bba62d-8d1df06-6d474-ac101d48abc.com
> From: Lab1<sip:7034850210abc.com>;tag=41784-1602
> To: Lab1<sip:7034850210abc.com>
> CSeq: 13707 REGISTER
> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 172.16.9.132:5060
> Contact: sip:7034850210172.16.9.132:5060
> Max-Forwards: 70
> Expires: 53
> Supported: timer,replaces
> Allow: REFER, UPDATE, INFO, OPTIONS, ACK, INVITE, BYE,
CANCEL, NOTIFY
> Content-Length: 0
>
> Thanks
> Gaurav
>
>
> Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote:
>   
>> I see....could you post the received request? the
error appears only
>> if the request has no VIA at all or there was a
parsing error....
>>
>> regards,
>> bogdan
>>
>> Gaurav Kulshreshtha wrote:
>>     
>>> We are making use of forward and the proxy mode
is stateless.
>>> Gaurav
>>> Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote:
>>>  
>>>       
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> are you using t_relay or forward()   /
stateful or stateless ?
>>>>
>>>> regards,
>>>> bogdan
>>>>
>>>> Gaurav Kulshreshtha wrote:
>>>>    
>>>>         
>>>>> All,
>>>>>  While trying to use openser version
1.2.0 on centos, we have found
>>>>> that
>>>>> /forward_request() /function prints out
error
>>>>> *"ERROR:forward_request: unable to
compute branch"*
>>>>> We noticed this in the case of REGISTER
message egressing out of
>>>>> OpenSER
>>>>> (using it as a proxy). Unless we are
>>>>> missing something in the big picture,
we suspect that the code inside
>>>>> /if (msg->add_to_branch_len == 0)/ 
should try to compute the branch
>>>>> parameter value (branch_builder()) if
one is
>>>>> not found during invokation of
get_sl_branch( ).
>>>>> In the whole code base there is only
one invokation of branch_builder
>>>>> inside tm modules and we suspect that
for case of
>>>>> message ingress'ing.
>>>>>
>>>>> If this is a bug, is there already an
open ticket/issue for this ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>> Gaurav Kulshrehstha
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
_______________________________________________
>>>>> Devel mailing list
>>>>> Developenser.org
>>>>> htt
p://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel
>>>>>
>>>>>         
>>>>>           
>>>   
>>>       
>
>
>   


_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
Developenser.org
htt
p://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel

Gaurav,

RFC 3261 obsoletes (almost 5 years ago) RFC 2543 and my
personal opinion 
is that 3261 should be followed. Of course, at some point I
agree that 
old compatibility should be kept, but not encourage - all
devices  
(phones, proxies, gateways, etc) should be aligned (by now)
to 3261 
mostly because of performance, flexibility and strength
reasons.

regarding the email thread, the info is posted in the BUG
1510109
    
https:/
/sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=15101
09&group_id=139143&atid=743020
Shortly, it refers to
    
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/p
ipermail/sip-implementors/2006-January/011864.html

regards,
bogdan

Gaurav Kulshreshtha wrote:
> Bogdan,
>   I looked at RFC 2543 and RFC 3261. While 3261
mandates branch
> parameter for both UA and proxy, RFC 2543 only mandates
it for proxies.
> The UA I am using seems to be RFC 2543 compliant.
> Also, we have been using the same UA for ser-0.8.14 and
it didn't really
> have an issue with branch parameter. We ran the same
REGISTER test against
> OpenSER 1.1.x and that didn't seem to have a problem
either. On close
> inspection, things have been shuffled around a bit in
forward_request()
> breaking the backward compatibility with RFC 2543
compliant UA.
>
> Also, your comment in forward_request( ) states -
"According to the
> latest discussions on the topic, you should reuse the
latest stateful
> branch". Can you forward me to this email thread.
I would want to see
> what this discussion says about backward
compatibility.
>
> Thanks
> Gaurav
> Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote:
>   
>> Hi,
>>
>> the request is bogus as the VIA hdr has no branch
param which is
>> mandatory. In stateless routing, the branch param
for the next VIA is
>> build based on the previous VIA, so this trigger
the error you got.
>>
>> regards,
>> bogdan
>>
>> Gaurav Kulshreshtha wrote:
>>     
>>> Here is the packet coming into OpenSER that
causes the problem:
>>>
>>> REGISTER sip:abc.com SIP/2.0
>>> Call-ID: 526bba62d-8d1df06-6d474-ac101d48abc.com
>>> From: Lab1<sip:7034850210abc.com>;tag=41784-1602
>>> To: Lab1<sip:7034850210abc.com>
>>> CSeq: 13707 REGISTER
>>> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 172.16.9.132:5060
>>> Contact: sip:7034850210172.16.9.132:5060
>>> Max-Forwards: 70
>>> Expires: 53
>>> Supported: timer,replaces
>>> Allow: REFER, UPDATE, INFO, OPTIONS, ACK,
INVITE, BYE, CANCEL, NOTIFY
>>> Content-Length: 0
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Gaurav
>>>
>>>
>>> Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote:
>>>  
>>>       
>>>> I see....could you post the received
request? the error appears only
>>>> if the request has no VIA at all or there
was a parsing error....
>>>>
>>>> regards,
>>>> bogdan
>>>>
>>>> Gaurav Kulshreshtha wrote:
>>>>    
>>>>         
>>>>> We are making use of forward and the
proxy mode is stateless.
>>>>> Gaurav
>>>>> Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote:
>>>>>  
>>>>>      
>>>>>           
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> are you using t_relay or forward() 
 / stateful or stateless ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> regards,
>>>>>> bogdan
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gaurav Kulshreshtha wrote:
>>>>>>           
>>>>>>             
>>>>>>> All,
>>>>>>>  While trying to use openser
version 1.2.0 on centos, we have found
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> /forward_request() /function
prints out error
>>>>>>> *"ERROR:forward_request:
unable to compute branch"*
>>>>>>> We noticed this in the case of
REGISTER message egressing out of
>>>>>>> OpenSER
>>>>>>> (using it as a proxy). Unless
we are
>>>>>>> missing something in the big
picture, we suspect that the code
>>>>>>> inside
>>>>>>> /if (msg->add_to_branch_len
== 0)/  should try to compute the branch
>>>>>>> parameter value
(branch_builder()) if one is
>>>>>>> not found during invokation of
get_sl_branch( ).
>>>>>>> In the whole code base there is
only one invokation of
>>>>>>> branch_builder
>>>>>>> inside tm modules and we
suspect that for case of
>>>>>>> message ingress'ing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If this is a bug, is there
already an open ticket/issue for this ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>> Gaurav Kulshrehstha
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
_______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Devel mailing list
>>>>>>> Developenser.org
>>>>>>> htt
p://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel
>>>>>>>               

_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
Developenser.org
htt
p://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel

Bogdan,

Unfortunately, there are a lot of UAs in the field that do
the wrong  
thing here.  Going by the IETF principle of "be liberal
in what you  
accept, be conservative in what you send", allowing for
UAs that are  
not up to date when the effort to do so is not tremendous is
a sign  
of practical software.  If Gaurav can provide a reasonable
patch to  
fix this problem, will that be acceptable?

-andy

On Mar 5, 2007, at 4:57 PM, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote:

> Gaurav,
>
> RFC 3261 obsoletes (almost 5 years ago) RFC 2543 and my
personal  
> opinion is that 3261 should be followed. Of course, at
some point I  
> agree that old compatibility should be kept, but not
encourage -  
> all devices  (phones, proxies, gateways, etc) should be
aligned (by  
> now) to 3261 mostly because of performance, flexibility
and  
> strength reasons.
>
> regarding the email thread, the info is posted in the
BUG 1510109
>    https://so
urceforge.net/tracker/index.php? 
>
func=detail&aid=1510109&group_id=139143&atid=743
020
> Shortly, it refers to
>    https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/pipermail/sip-implem
entors/2006- 
> January/011864.html
>
> regards,
> bogdan
>
> Gaurav Kulshreshtha wrote:
>> Bogdan,
>>   I looked at RFC 2543 and RFC 3261. While 3261
mandates branch
>> parameter for both UA and proxy, RFC 2543 only
mandates it for  
>> proxies.
>> The UA I am using seems to be RFC 2543 compliant.
>> Also, we have been using the same UA for ser-0.8.14
and it didn't  
>> really
>> have an issue with branch parameter. We ran the
same REGISTER test  
>> against
>> OpenSER 1.1.x and that didn't seem to have a
problem either. On close
>> inspection, things have been shuffled around a bit
in  
>> forward_request()
>> breaking the backward compatibility with RFC 2543
compliant UA.
>>
>> Also, your comment in forward_request( ) states -
"According to the
>> latest discussions on the topic, you should reuse
the latest stateful
>> branch". Can you forward me to this email
thread. I would want to see
>> what this discussion says about backward
compatibility.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Gaurav
>> Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> the request is bogus as the VIA hdr has no
branch param which is
>>> mandatory. In stateless routing, the branch
param for the next  
>>> VIA is
>>> build based on the previous VIA, so this
trigger the error you got.
>>>
>>> regards,
>>> bogdan
>>>
>>> Gaurav Kulshreshtha wrote:
>>>
>>>> Here is the packet coming into OpenSER that
causes the problem:
>>>>
>>>> REGISTER sip:abc.com SIP/2.0
>>>> Call-ID:
526bba62d-8d1df06-6d474-ac101d48abc.com
>>>> From: Lab1<sip:7034850210abc.com>;tag=41784-1602
>>>> To: Lab1<sip:7034850210abc.com>
>>>> CSeq: 13707 REGISTER
>>>> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 172.16.9.132:5060
>>>> Contact: sip:7034850210172.16.9.132:5060
>>>> Max-Forwards: 70
>>>> Expires: 53
>>>> Supported: timer,replaces
>>>> Allow: REFER, UPDATE, INFO, OPTIONS, ACK,
INVITE, BYE, CANCEL,  
>>>> NOTIFY
>>>> Content-Length: 0
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>> Gaurav
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I see....could you post the received
request? the error appears  
>>>>> only
>>>>> if the request has no VIA at all or
there was a parsing error....
>>>>>
>>>>> regards,
>>>>> bogdan
>>>>>
>>>>> Gaurav Kulshreshtha wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> We are making use of forward and
the proxy mode is stateless.
>>>>>> Gaurav
>>>>>> Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> are you using t_relay or
forward()   / stateful or stateless ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> regards,
>>>>>>> bogdan
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Gaurav Kulshreshtha wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> All,
>>>>>>>>  While trying to use
openser version 1.2.0 on centos, we  
>>>>>>>> have found
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> /forward_request()
/function prints out error
>>>>>>>>
*"ERROR:forward_request: unable to compute
branch"*
>>>>>>>> We noticed this in the case
of REGISTER message egressing  
>>>>>>>> out of
>>>>>>>> OpenSER
>>>>>>>> (using it as a proxy).
Unless we are
>>>>>>>> missing something in the
big picture, we suspect that the code
>>>>>>>> inside
>>>>>>>> /if
(msg->add_to_branch_len == 0)/  should try to compute  
>>>>>>>> the branch
>>>>>>>> parameter value
(branch_builder()) if one is
>>>>>>>> not found during invokation
of get_sl_branch( ).
>>>>>>>> In the whole code base
there is only one invokation of
>>>>>>>> branch_builder
>>>>>>>> inside tm modules and we
suspect that for case of
>>>>>>>> message ingress'ing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If this is a bug, is there
already an open ticket/issue for  
>>>>>>>> this ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>> Gaurav Kulshrehstha
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
_______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Devel mailing list
>>>>>>>> Developenser.org
>>>>>>>> htt
p://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel
>>>>>>>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Devel mailing list
> Developenser.org
> htt
p://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel


_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
Developenser.org
htt
p://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel

Andrew,

I already committed a patch that shoud maintain backward
compatibility 
by using a default branch value of "0" if no other
one is found.

please retest and see if works now.

regards,
bogdan


Andrew Newton wrote:
> Bogdan,
>
> Unfortunately, there are a lot of UAs in the field that
do the wrong 
> thing here.  Going by the IETF principle of "be
liberal in what you 
> accept, be conservative in what you send",
allowing for UAs that are 
> not up to date when the effort to do so is not
tremendous is a sign of 
> practical software.  If Gaurav can provide a reasonable
patch to fix 
> this problem, will that be acceptable?
>
> -andy
>
> On Mar 5, 2007, at 4:57 PM, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote:
>
>> Gaurav,
>>
>> RFC 3261 obsoletes (almost 5 years ago) RFC 2543
and my personal 
>> opinion is that 3261 should be followed. Of course,
at some point I 
>> agree that old compatibility should be kept, but
not encourage - all 
>> devices  (phones, proxies, gateways, etc) should be
aligned (by now) 
>> to 3261 mostly because of performance, flexibility
and strength reasons.
>>
>> regarding the email thread, the info is posted in
the BUG 1510109
>>    
>> https:/
/sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=15101
09&group_id=139143&atid=743020 
>>
>> Shortly, it refers to
>>    
>> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/p
ipermail/sip-implementors/2006-January/011864.html 
>>
>>
>> regards,
>> bogdan
>>
>> Gaurav Kulshreshtha wrote:
>>> Bogdan,
>>>   I looked at RFC 2543 and RFC 3261. While 3261
mandates branch
>>> parameter for both UA and proxy, RFC 2543 only
mandates it for proxies.
>>> The UA I am using seems to be RFC 2543
compliant.
>>> Also, we have been using the same UA for
ser-0.8.14 and it didn't 
>>> really
>>> have an issue with branch parameter. We ran the
same REGISTER test 
>>> against
>>> OpenSER 1.1.x and that didn't seem to have a
problem either. On close
>>> inspection, things have been shuffled around a
bit in forward_request()
>>> breaking the backward compatibility with RFC
2543 compliant UA.
>>>
>>> Also, your comment in forward_request( ) states
- "According to the
>>> latest discussions on the topic, you should
reuse the latest stateful
>>> branch". Can you forward me to this email
thread. I would want to see
>>> what this discussion says about backward
compatibility.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Gaurav
>>> Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> the request is bogus as the VIA hdr has no
branch param which is
>>>> mandatory. In stateless routing, the branch
param for the next VIA is
>>>> build based on the previous VIA, so this
trigger the error you got.
>>>>
>>>> regards,
>>>> bogdan
>>>>
>>>> Gaurav Kulshreshtha wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Here is the packet coming into OpenSER
that causes the problem:
>>>>>
>>>>> REGISTER sip:abc.com SIP/2.0
>>>>> Call-ID:
526bba62d-8d1df06-6d474-ac101d48abc.com
>>>>> From: Lab1<sip:7034850210abc.com>;tag=41784-1602
>>>>> To: Lab1<sip:7034850210abc.com>
>>>>> CSeq: 13707 REGISTER
>>>>> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 172.16.9.132:5060
>>>>> Contact: sip:7034850210172.16.9.132:5060
>>>>> Max-Forwards: 70
>>>>> Expires: 53
>>>>> Supported: timer,replaces
>>>>> Allow: REFER, UPDATE, INFO, OPTIONS,
ACK, INVITE, BYE, CANCEL, NOTIFY
>>>>> Content-Length: 0
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>> Gaurav
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I see....could you post the
received request? the error appears only
>>>>>> if the request has no VIA at all or
there was a parsing error....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> regards,
>>>>>> bogdan
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gaurav Kulshreshtha wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We are making use of forward
and the proxy mode is stateless.
>>>>>>> Gaurav
>>>>>>> Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> are you using t_relay or
forward()   / stateful or stateless ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> regards,
>>>>>>>> bogdan
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Gaurav Kulshreshtha wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> All,
>>>>>>>>>  While trying to use
openser version 1.2.0 on centos, we have 
>>>>>>>>> found
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> /forward_request()
/function prints out error
>>>>>>>>>
*"ERROR:forward_request: unable to compute
branch"*
>>>>>>>>> We noticed this in the
case of REGISTER message egressing out of
>>>>>>>>> OpenSER
>>>>>>>>> (using it as a proxy).
Unless we are
>>>>>>>>> missing something in
the big picture, we suspect that the code
>>>>>>>>> inside
>>>>>>>>> /if
(msg->add_to_branch_len == 0)/  should try to compute the

>>>>>>>>> branch
>>>>>>>>> parameter value
(branch_builder()) if one is
>>>>>>>>> not found during
invokation of get_sl_branch( ).
>>>>>>>>> In the whole code base
there is only one invokation of
>>>>>>>>> branch_builder
>>>>>>>>> inside tm modules and
we suspect that for case of
>>>>>>>>> message ingress'ing.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If this is a bug, is
there already an open ticket/issue for 
>>>>>>>>> this ?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>>> Gaurav Kulshrehstha
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
_______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> Devel mailing list
>>>>>>>>> Developenser.org
>>>>>>>>> htt
p://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel
>>>>>>>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Devel mailing list
>> Developenser.org
>> htt
p://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel
>
>


_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
Developenser.org
htt
p://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel

Bogdan,
    This is what we have done as a patch.
Thanks
Gaurav

Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote:
> Andrew,
>
> I already committed a patch that shoud maintain
backward compatibility
> by using a default branch value of "0" if no
other one is found.
>
> please retest and see if works now.
>
> regards,
> bogdan
>
>
> Andrew Newton wrote:
>> Bogdan,
>>
>> Unfortunately, there are a lot of UAs in the field
that do the wrong
>> thing here.  Going by the IETF principle of
"be liberal in what you
>> accept, be conservative in what you send",
allowing for UAs that are
>> not up to date when the effort to do so is not
tremendous is a sign
>> of practical software.  If Gaurav can provide a
reasonable patch to
>> fix this problem, will that be acceptable?
>>
>> -andy
>>
>> On Mar 5, 2007, at 4:57 PM, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu
wrote:
>>
>>> Gaurav,
>>>
>>> RFC 3261 obsoletes (almost 5 years ago) RFC
2543 and my personal
>>> opinion is that 3261 should be followed. Of
course, at some point I
>>> agree that old compatibility should be kept,
but not encourage - all
>>> devices  (phones, proxies, gateways, etc)
should be aligned (by now)
>>> to 3261 mostly because of performance,
flexibility and strength
>>> reasons.
>>>
>>> regarding the email thread, the info is posted
in the BUG 1510109
>>>   
>>> https:/
/sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=15101
09&group_id=139143&atid=743020
>>>
>>> Shortly, it refers to
>>>   
>>> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/p
ipermail/sip-implementors/2006-January/011864.html
>>>
>>>
>>> regards,
>>> bogdan
>>>
>>> Gaurav Kulshreshtha wrote:
>>>> Bogdan,
>>>>   I looked at RFC 2543 and RFC 3261. While
3261 mandates branch
>>>> parameter for both UA and proxy, RFC 2543
only mandates it for
>>>> proxies.
>>>> The UA I am using seems to be RFC 2543
compliant.
>>>> Also, we have been using the same UA for
ser-0.8.14 and it didn't
>>>> really
>>>> have an issue with branch parameter. We ran
the same REGISTER test
>>>> against
>>>> OpenSER 1.1.x and that didn't seem to have
a problem either. On close
>>>> inspection, things have been shuffled
around a bit in
>>>> forward_request()
>>>> breaking the backward compatibility with
RFC 2543 compliant UA.
>>>>
>>>> Also, your comment in forward_request( )
states - "According to the
>>>> latest discussions on the topic, you should
reuse the latest stateful
>>>> branch". Can you forward me to this
email thread. I would want to see
>>>> what this discussion says about backward
compatibility.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>> Gaurav
>>>> Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> the request is bogus as the VIA hdr has
no branch param which is
>>>>> mandatory. In stateless routing, the
branch param for the next VIA is
>>>>> build based on the previous VIA, so
this trigger the error you got.
>>>>>
>>>>> regards,
>>>>> bogdan
>>>>>
>>>>> Gaurav Kulshreshtha wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Here is the packet coming into
OpenSER that causes the problem:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> REGISTER sip:abc.com SIP/2.0
>>>>>> Call-ID:
526bba62d-8d1df06-6d474-ac101d48abc.com
>>>>>> From: Lab1<sip:7034850210abc.com>;tag=41784-1602
>>>>>> To: Lab1<sip:7034850210abc.com>
>>>>>> CSeq: 13707 REGISTER
>>>>>> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 172.16.9.132:5060
>>>>>> Contact: sip:7034850210172.16.9.132:5060
>>>>>> Max-Forwards: 70
>>>>>> Expires: 53
>>>>>> Supported: timer,replaces
>>>>>> Allow: REFER, UPDATE, INFO,
OPTIONS, ACK, INVITE, BYE, CANCEL,
>>>>>> NOTIFY
>>>>>> Content-Length: 0
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>> Gaurav
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I see....could you post the
received request? the error appears
>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>> if the request has no VIA at
all or there was a parsing error....
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> regards,
>>>>>>> bogdan
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Gaurav Kulshreshtha wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We are making use of
forward and the proxy mode is stateless.
>>>>>>>> Gaurav
>>>>>>>> Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> are you using t_relay
or forward()   / stateful or stateless ?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> regards,
>>>>>>>>> bogdan
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Gaurav Kulshreshtha
wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> All,
>>>>>>>>>>  While trying to
use openser version 1.2.0 on centos, we have
>>>>>>>>>> found
>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>> /forward_request()
/function prints out error
>>>>>>>>>>
*"ERROR:forward_request: unable to compute
branch"*
>>>>>>>>>> We noticed this in
the case of REGISTER message egressing out of
>>>>>>>>>> OpenSER
>>>>>>>>>> (using it as a
proxy). Unless we are
>>>>>>>>>> missing something
in the big picture, we suspect that the code
>>>>>>>>>> inside
>>>>>>>>>> /if
(msg->add_to_branch_len == 0)/  should try to compute
the
>>>>>>>>>> branch
>>>>>>>>>> parameter value
(branch_builder()) if one is
>>>>>>>>>> not found during
invokation of get_sl_branch( ).
>>>>>>>>>> In the whole code
base there is only one invokation of
>>>>>>>>>> branch_builder
>>>>>>>>>> inside tm modules
and we suspect that for case of
>>>>>>>>>> message
ingress'ing.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If this is a bug,
is there already an open ticket/issue for
>>>>>>>>>> this ?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>>>> Gaurav
Kulshrehstha
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
_______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> Devel mailing list
>>>>>>>>>> Developenser.org
>>>>>>>>>> htt
p://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>
_______________________________________________
>>> Devel mailing list
>>> Developenser.org
>>> htt
p://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel
>>
>>
>


_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
Developenser.org
htt
p://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel