[Spce-user] Fwd: Re: Blacklist t.38 fax codec
Leopoldo Iglesia
liglesia at por-aire.es
Fri Jun 20 10:08:41 EDT 2014
The log for kamailio-proxy tells this when I call , and client tries to
negotiate as fax....
Any ideas, apart from las post? Thanks
Jun 19 10:36:43 SIPSW /usr/sbin/kamailio[2391]: INFO: <script>: Setting
PPI to '<sip:984099520 at 154.58.3.135>' - R=sip:x1008 at 154.58.3.159:5060
ID=15059 at 154.58.3.158
Jun 19 10:36:43 SIPSW /usr/sbin/kamailio[2391]: INFO: <script>: Prepare
Diversion setting - R=sip:x1008 at 154.58.3.159:5060 ID=15059 at 154.58.3.158
Jun 19 10:36:43 SIPSW /usr/sbin/kamailio[2391]: INFO: <script>: No
selector set, not setting CLI - R=sip:x1008 at 154.58.3.159:5060
ID=15059 at 154.58.3.158
Jun 19 10:36:43 SIPSW /usr/sbin/kamailio[2391]: INFO: <script>: Prepare
History-Info setting - R=sip:x1008 at 154.58.3.159:5060 ID=15059 at 154.58.3.158
Jun 19 10:36:43 SIPSW /usr/sbin/kamailio[2391]: INFO: <script>: No
selector set, not setting CLI - R=sip:x1008 at 154.58.3.159:5060
ID=15059 at 154.58.3.158
Jun 19 10:36:43 SIPSW /usr/sbin/kamailio[2391]: INFO: <script>: Applying
callee-out domain rewrite rules using dpid '4' -
R=sip:x1008 at 154.58.3.159:5060 ID=15059 at 154.58.3.158
Jun 19 10:36:43 SIPSW /usr/sbin/kamailio[2391]: INFO: <script>: No
matching rewrite rules for 'x1008' found - R=sip:x1008 at 154.58.3.159:5060
ID=15059 at 154.58.3.158
Jun 19 10:36:43 SIPSW /usr/sbin/kamailio[2391]: INFO: <script>: Setting
P-Called-Party-ID '<sip:x1008 at 154.58.3.135>' -
R=sip:x1008 at 154.58.3.159:5060 ID=15059 at 154.58.3.158
Jun 19 10:36:43 SIPSW /usr/sbin/kamailio[2391]: INFO: <script>: Writing
sbc parameters ;aleg_sst_enable=no;sst_enable=no -
R=sip:x1008 at 154.58.3.159:5060 ID=15059 at 154.58.3.158
Jun 19 10:36:43 SIPSW /usr/sbin/kamailio[2391]: INFO: <script>:
Appending P-D-URI 'sip:lb at 127.0.0.1;lr;socket='sip:154.58.3.135:5060'' -
R=sip:x1008 at 154.58.3.159:5060 ID=15059 at 154.58.3.158
Jun 19 10:36:43 SIPSW /usr/sbin/kamailio[2391]: INFO: <script>: Forcing
request via B2BUA 'sip:127.0.0.1:5080' - R=sip:x1008 at 154.58.3.159:5060
ID=15059 at 154.58.3.158
Jun 19 10:36:43 SIPSW /usr/sbin/kamailio[2391]: INFO: <script>: Request
leaving server, D-URI='sip:127.0.0.1:5080' -
R=sip:x1008 at 154.58.3.159:5060 ID=15059 at 154.58.3.158
Jun 19 10:36:43 SIPSW /usr/sbin/kamailio[2403]: INFO: <script>:
NAT-Reply - S=100 - Connecting M=INVITE IP=154.58.3.158:5060
(127.0.0.1:5080) ID=15059 at 154.58.3.158
Jun 19 10:36:43 SIPSW /usr/sbin/kamailio[2395]: INFO: <script>:
NAT-Reply - S=180 - Ringing M=INVITE IP=154.58.3.158:5060
(127.0.0.1:5080) ID=15059 at 154.58.3.158
Jun 19 10:36:52 SIPSW /usr/sbin/kamailio[2399]: INFO: <script>: New
request - M=CANCEL R=sip:984099519 at 154.58.3.135 F=sip:x1009 at 154.58.3.135
T=sip:984099519 at 154.58.3.135 IP=154.58.3.158:5060 (127.0.0.1:5060)
ID=15059 at 154.58.3.158
Jun 19 10:36:52 SIPSW /usr/sbin/kamailio[2399]: INFO: <script>: Stop
mediaproxy for current branch using first Via -
R=sip:984099519 at 154.58.3.135 ID=15059 at 154.58.3.158
Jun 19 10:36:52 SIPSW /usr/sbin/kamailio[2399]: ERROR: rtpproxy-ng
[rtpproxy.c:1348]: proxy replied with error: Call-ID not found or tags
didn't match
Jun 19 10:36:52 SIPSW /usr/sbin/kamailio[2399]: INFO: <script>: Request
leaving server via local route - R=sip:984099519 at 154.58.3.135
ID=15059 at 154.58.3.158
Jun 19 10:36:52 SIPSW /usr/sbin/kamailio[2393]: INFO: <script>:
NAT-Reply - S=487 - Request terminated M=INVITE IP=154.58.3.158:5060
(127.0.0.1:5080) ID=15059 at 154.58.3.158
Jun 19 10:36:52 SIPSW /usr/sbin/kamailio[2393]: INFO: <script>: Failure
route for local call - R=sip:984099519 at 154.58.3.135 ID=15059 at 154.58.3.158
Jun 19 10:36:52 SIPSW /usr/sbin/kamailio[2393]: INFO: <script>: Stop
mediaproxy for current branch using first Via -
R=sip:984099519 at 154.58.3.135 ID=15059 at 154.58.3.158
Jun 19 10:36:52 SIPSW /usr/sbin/kamailio[2393]: ERROR: rtpproxy-ng
[rtpproxy.c:1348]: proxy replied with error: Call-ID not found or tags
didn't match
Jun 19 10:36:52 SIPSW /usr/sbin/kamailio[2393]: INFO: <script>: Final
reply - R=sip:984099519 at 154.58.3.135 ID=15059 at 154.58.3.158
Jun 19 10:36:52 SIPSW /usr/sbin/kamailio[2401]: INFO: <script>: New
request - M=ACK R=sip:984099519 at 154.58.3.135 F=sip:x1009 at 154.58.3.135
T=sip:984099519 at 154.58.3.135 IP=154.58.3.158:5060 (127.0.0.1:5060)
ID=15059 at 154.58.3.158
El 20/06/2014 14:24, Daniel Grotti escribió:
> Could be,
> as I see also the normal t38 negotiation is client-dependent....it
>
> But from RFC3261:
>
> During the session, either Alice or Bob may decide to change the
> characteristics of the media session. This is accomplished by
> sending a re-INVITE containing a new media description. This re-
> INVITE references the existing dialog so that the other party knows
> that it is to modify an existing session instead of establishing a
> new session. The other party sends a 200 (OK) to accept the change.
> The requestor responds to the 200 (OK) with an ACK. If the other
> party does not accept the change, he sends an error response such as
> 488 (Not Acceptable Here), which also receives an ACK. However, the
> failure of the re-INVITE does not cause the existing call to fail -
> the session continues using the previously negotiated
> characteristics.
>
>
>
> Daniel
>
>
>
>
> On 06/20/2014 02:08 PM, Matthew Ogden wrote:
>>
>> I think the problem is, a 488 will stop the call altogether?
>>
>> I cant recall, but if you get a 488 in a REINVITE, will the call not
>> terminate after that, or does it "failback" to leaving t38
>> un-negotiated... might be device dependent?
>>
>> *From:*spce-user-bounces at lists.sipwise.com
>> <mailto:spce-user-bounces at lists.sipwise.com>
>> [mailto:spce-user-bounces at lists.sipwise.com
>> <mailto:spce-user-bounces at lists.sipwise.com>] *On Behalf Of *Leopoldo
>> Iglesia
>> *Sent:* 20 June 2014 01:55 PM
>> *To:* spce-user at lists.sipwise.com <mailto:spce-user at lists.sipwise.com>
>> *Subject:* Re: [Spce-user] Fwd: Re: Blacklist t.38 fax codec
>>
>> Ok. "has_totag" where is located ??
>>
>> El 20/06/2014 13:35, Daniel Grotti escribió:
>>
>> I have nothing ready to give you right now.
>> Basically on kamailio proxy you should match a Re-invite (using
>> the "has_totag") and check if SDP contains t38 headers/codec
>> (just have a look how the T38 reinvite looks like).
>> So, if you receive a re-invite with T38 headers into SDP, just
>> send back a 488 reply.
>>
>> Daniel
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 06/20/2014 01:28 PM, Leopoldo Iglesia wrote:
>>
>> Fine, how can I do this hack? cause endpoints is impossible
>> to mod config, so they are rented and provisioned by an ftth
>> operator.
>>
>> El 20/06/2014 13:23, Daniel Grotti escribió:
>>
>> Hi,
>> I think you need to avoid to forward the T38 Re-INVITE,
>> so you should hack your SPCE in order to reply to the T38
>> re-invite with a "488 Not acceptable here", for example.
>> So the sender SHOULD fallback to G711.
>> Anyway, the best solution if you have endpoint with t38
>> enabled but they don't work well, is to disable t38.
>>
>>
>> Daniel
>>
>>
>>
>> On 06/20/2014 01:15 PM, Leopoldo Iglesia wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > But both endpoints support it, that is the problem
>> and the only > scenario when it fails, so i want SPCE
>> not to send Fax negotiation to > endpoint,.
>>
>>
>>
>> El 20/06/2014 12:12, Daniel Grotti escribió: >> Hi,
>> >> that's strange, if one of the endpoints try to
>> switch to t38 and the >> other endpoint doesn't
>> support it, they should fallback to G711. >> >>
>> Daniel >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 06/20/2014 01:33 AM,
>> Leopoldo Iglesia wrote: >>> How can I, blacklist t.38
>> to avoid endpoints to try t38 negotiation? >>> >>>
>> When i call from ericcson ont to fax capable
>> endpoint, it try to >>> connect t38 fax and There is
>> no voice. >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> Leopoldo iglesia >>>
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> Spce-user mailing list >>>
>> Spce-user at lists.sipwise.com
>> <mailto:Spce-user at lists.sipwise.com> >>>
>> http://lists.sipwise.com/listinfo/spce-user >> >>
>> _______________________________________________ >>
>> Spce-user mailing list >> Spce-user at lists.sipwise.com
>> <mailto:Spce-user at lists.sipwise.com> >>
>> http://lists.sipwise.com/listinfo/spce-user > >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> Spce-user mailing list
>>
>> Spce-user at lists.sipwise.com <mailto:Spce-user at lists.sipwise.com>
>>
>> http://lists.sipwise.com/listinfo/spce-user
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> Spce-user mailing list
>>
>> Spce-user at lists.sipwise.com <mailto:Spce-user at lists.sipwise.com>
>>
>> http://lists.sipwise.com/listinfo/spce-user
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> Spce-user mailing list
>>
>> Spce-user at lists.sipwise.com <mailto:Spce-user at lists.sipwise.com>
>>
>> http://lists.sipwise.com/listinfo/spce-user
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> Spce-user mailing list
>>
>> Spce-user at lists.sipwise.com <mailto:Spce-user at lists.sipwise.com>
>>
>> http://lists.sipwise.com/listinfo/spce-user
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Spce-user mailing list
>> Spce-user at lists.sipwise.com
>> http://lists.sipwise.com/listinfo/spce-user
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Spce-user mailing list
> Spce-user at lists.sipwise.com
> http://lists.sipwise.com/listinfo/spce-user
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sipwise.com/pipermail/spce-user_lists.sipwise.com/attachments/20140620/317f8682/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Spce-user
mailing list