I again ! Apparently, I must be missing something, when I try to uses STUN, or to setup my public IP myself (2 NATs traversal solutions) To make a simple test, I launch pjsua with theses parameters : --local-port=5070 --ip-addr=89.226.*.*--id=sip:mylogin at kiwak.net<sip%3Amylogin at kiwak.net>--registrar=sip: kiwak.net --realm=* --username=mylogin --password=secret The Registrar reply : Don't contain my contact header, as I sent it in my REGISTER request, so, at the end, the result will me considered will be considered as a successful Unregister ... Disable "contact header checking", is not a solution. (SIP messages at the end of my post) Its is really problematic, because if you keep on trying, you will indead Register many times : - My the provider believes I have registered many times. - Pjsua thinks it is only several "Successful Unregister". I'm being a classic "NAT" router, and I've tried with several providers, with the same issue : ippi.fr kiwak.net sip.voipbuster.com sip.blueface.ie (Everything is working fine when I use neither STUN nor manual Public IP address.) So, What's wrong with me, when I use pjsua ? I guess I AM the problem ... because I hope somebody has already succefully use pjsua with the --ip-addr or --stun-srv parameters lol ;-) Regards Electrocut // the SIP messages : (I've only masked public IP when I pasted on the mailing list) Note : I notice that the REGISTER messages are sent with rport mode ... Maybe I shouldn't use rport mode, if I want to choose my incoming UDP ports myself, right ? 1/4 REGISTER sip:kiwak.net SIP/2.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 89.226.*.*:5070;rport;branch=z9hG4bKPj0af90b641ae54c1e97f4f6 3e37ff7e70 Max-Forwards: 70 From: <sip:mylogin@xxxxxxxxx <sip%3Amylogin at kiwak.net> >;tag=f2ccdb6be99441f98074790dfaa777a6 To: <sip:mylogin at kiwak.net <sip%3Amylogin at kiwak.net>> Call-ID: afa938e26bb94beb9681ef80641c947d CSeq: 38762 REGISTER User-Agent: PJSUA v0.8.0-trunk/win32 Contact: <sip:mylogin at 89.226.*.*:5070> Expires: 300 Content-Length: 0 >>> 14:12:53.265 pjsua_acc.c Registration sent 2/4 SIP/2.0 401 Unauthorized Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 10.10.10.5:5070 ;branch=z9hG4bKPj0af90b641ae54c1e97f4f63e37ff7e7 0;received=89.226.*.*;rport=5070 From: <sip:mylogin@xxxxxxxxx <sip%3Amylogin at kiwak.net> >;tag=f2ccdb6be99441f98074790dfaa777a6 To: <sip:mylogin at kiwak.net <sip%3Amylogin at kiwak.net>>;tag=as2b21f2a1 Call-ID: afa938e26bb94beb9681ef80641c947d CSeq: 38762 REGISTER User-Agent: Asterisk PBX Allow: INVITE, ACK, CANCEL, OPTIONS, BYE, REFER, SUBSCRIBE, NOTIFY Supported: replaces WWW-Authenticate: Digest algorithm=MD5, realm="asterisk", nonce="57c1e908" Content-Length: 0 3/4 REGISTER sip:kiwak.net SIP/2.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 89.226.*.*:5070;rport;branch=z9hG4bKPjaaefbed1996a4b128c5fe9 9548d05ff4 Max-Forwards: 70 From: <sip:mylogin@xxxxxxxxx <sip%3Amylogin at kiwak.net> >;tag=f2ccdb6be99441f98074790dfaa777a6 To: <sip:mylogin at kiwak.net <sip%3Amylogin at kiwak.net>> Call-ID: afa938e26bb94beb9681ef80641c947d CSeq: 38763 REGISTER User-Agent: PJSUA v0.8.0-trunk/win32 Contact: <sip:mylogin at 89.226.*.*:5070> Expires: 300 Authorization: Digest username="mylogin", realm="asterisk", nonce="57c1e908", uri="sip:kiwak.net", response="2ec7e9176877369c5f0bcc3c51856747", algorithm=MD5 Content-Length: 0 4/4 SIP/2.0 200 OK Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 10.10.10.5:5070 ;branch=z9hG4bKPjaaefbed1996a4b128c5fe99548d05ff 4;received=89.226.*.*;rport=5070 From: <sip:mylogin@xxxxxxxxx <sip%3Amylogin at kiwak.net> >;tag=f2ccdb6be99441f98074790dfaa777a6 To: <sip:mylogin at kiwak.net <sip%3Amylogin at kiwak.net>>;tag=as2b21f2a1 Call-ID: afa938e26bb94beb9681ef80641c947d CSeq: 38763 REGISTER User-Agent: Asterisk PBX Allow: INVITE, ACK, CANCEL, OPTIONS, BYE, REFER, SUBSCRIBE, NOTIFY Supported: replaces Expires: 300 Contact: <sip:mylogin at 10.10.10.5:5070>;expires=300 Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 12:12:57 GMT Content-Length: 0 >>> 14:12:53.437 pjsua_acc.c sip:mylogin at kiwak.net<sip%3Amylogin at kiwak.net>: unregistration success On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 10:26 AM, Tanguy Floc'h <electrocut at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi ! > > I think there is a problem, when pjsip tries to get the Expire value, from > the 200 OK > > Reply coming from a REGISTER Request. > > The problem is for SIP messages like these, when "Expires" value had not > its own header field : > > SIP/2.0 200 OK > Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 172.17.20.226:1265;rport;branch=z9hG4b... > To: <sip:101 at 172.17.20.226 <sip%3A101 at 172.17.20.226>> > From: <sip:101@172.17.20.226 <sip%3A101 at 172.17.20.226>>;tag=c8b125... > Call-ID: 99ed82... > CSeq: 22778 REGISTER > User-Agent: NCH Swift Sound Axon 1.30 > Contact: <sip:101 at 172.17.20.226:1265>;expires=300; > Content-Length: 0 > > As you can see, expires value has not its own header field (like "Expires: > 300"), but is put at the end of the "Contact" header field (.. ; > expires=300;) > > That's what happen in this case : > > When receiving the 200 OK Reply, from the REGISTER Request, the function > tsx_callback() in sig_reg.c tries to find the "Expires= ?" header field : > > (line 718) > expires = (pjsip_expires_hdr*)pjsip_msg_find_hdr(msg, PJSIP_H_EXPIRES, > NULL); > > but can't find this field in the SIP message. > > If PJSIP_REGISTER_CLIENT_CHECK_CONTACT Param is set to 1, it is not a > problem if expire field can not be found in SIP 200/Ok Reply, because the > previous (and lower) value > > (from the REGISTER Request) will be taken into account instead : > > (line 760) > if (contact[i]->expires >= 0 && contact[i]->expires < expiration) > expiration = contact[i]->expires; > > But if PJSIP_REGISTER_CLIENT_CHECK_CONTACT Param is set to 0 (that's my > case), expiration value is set to -1, just before the callback is called, > line 810 in sig_reg.c > > Consequently, when the callback function regc_cb in pjsua_acc.c test the > expiration value, it believes that it is a "succefful UNregistration", > instead of Registration (because expiration < 1) > > A way to fix the problem could be : > - To read expires value in "pjsip_contact_hdr->expires", if > "pjsip_contact_hdr->ivalue" doesn't exist > or > - to compare the Expiration value, even if > PJSIP_REGISTER_CLIENT_CHECK_CONTACT is disable, so the previous value will > be taken into account instead. > > Thanks ! > > Electrocut > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.pjsip.org/pipermail/pjsip_lists.pjsip.org/attachments/20080419/2f22f148/attachment-0001.html
