I am getting a SIP/2.0 439 First Hop Lacks Outbound Support while I am trying to register a softphone against the PBX.
what are the possible causes for 439 error code. Do we need to create a Remote Proxy on the signaling server?
I am getting a SIP/2.0 439 First Hop Lacks Outbound Support while I am
trying to register a softphone against the PBX.
what are the possible causes for 439 error code.
The 439 response code is issued by a Registrar to indicate that support of oubound specification is requested by the softphone but not supported by the PBX. (In that case, there is also other possibilities)
Do we need to create a Remote Proxy on the signaling server?
I depends of your telecom policies but I bet that if you remove Outbound request on the softphone side it will work nicely.
In practice, you should check with wieshark if the softphone generate that SIP header : Require: outbound
Related
We are facing a technical issue with networking, which I'm not able to comprehend.
We are using Linphone Client to connect to x.x.x.125(Freeswitch box) via x.x.x.101 i.e .101 being a SIP proxy Flexisip.
The SIP flow look as below.
[ Linphone box ] <-> [ `.101` box ] <-> [ `.125` box ]
Now when we register i.e SIP REGISTER request (without VPN connected) to .125 via .101 it works i.e Registration is a success, saying this because I was sniffing around the traffic with TCP dump on both .101 and Linphone Client box (both had 200 OK Response for Register request).
Now here is the deal, when we make a call i.e send SIP INVITE request without VPN connected. We see no traffic on .101 box but same can be found on Linphone box hinting that request is directed to .101.(but at the same time I can constantly see OPTIONS request appearing from .101 to Linphone Machine and also a 200K response getting sent from Linphone machine for OPTIONS request.)
Now, The sooner we connect to VPN, we see the request appearing on the .101 box from Linphone box
Now, had this behaviour would have stayed constant, I would have suspected the Firewall rule but the it would work during SIP REGISTER and not using Regular INVITE invite is something I'm able to understand here.
And when we are connected to VPN it work.
NOTE: If I assume this is a packet loss as a part of UDP even the retransmission too does not go through and this happen in multiple run..
It's only the INVITE packet would not be sent always does not happen with REGISTER request.
Here how the sip flow looks like
Given the REGISTER requests are getting through that rules out an IP routing and firewall issue (assuming it's not doing deep inspection on SIP packets).
That leaves the two most likely culprits as the client software (in this case Linphone) using the wrong network interface,
Try running a test with a tool like sipp where you can explicitly set the local address to use and the type of SIP request to send.
# To test the user agent client scenario (which sends INVITE requests) use:
sipp -bind_local 10.1.10.1 -sn uac -m 1 x.x.x.125
Update:
Some observations from inspecting the packet captures:
In the no VPN case:
there is a NAPT between the softphone and the Proxy translating 10.1.10.1 to 49.36.13.47, e.g. 10.1.10.1:39248 mapped to 49.36.13.47:44150.
REGISTER responses do appear to be coming from the FreeSWITCH server at 63.211.239.125 according to the User Agent string of Flexisip... on the response.
in agreement with the original post there are no responses at all to INVITE requests in the capture.
there are no fragmented UDP packets captured.
In the VPN case:
there is no NAPT between the softphone and the Proxy. The softphone traffic is originating from 172.17.8.37.
the softphone is using an IP address of 192.168.29.134 in it's SDP offer which means the device likely has multiple network interfaces.
there is a fragmented UDP packet recorded when the softphone sends an INVITE request to the Proxy but it doesn't seem to be an issue as the Proxy happily forwards the request to the FreeSWITCH server.
Missing Data:
The no VPN capture does not contain the traffic between the Proxy and the FreeSWITCH server. This is the most crucial leg for the analysis since it could show whether the Proxy is forwarding the INVITE request or not.
Running tcpdump directly on the Proxy would be able to provide this missing information.
Updated Guess:
Based on the still incomplete information my best guess would now be that that Proxy has misconfigured (or perhaps deliberate) SIP settings and is silently dropping INVITE requests received on public interfaces.
When the softphone connects on the VPN the INVITE requests are forwarded because they are considered to originate from an internal network.
For REGISTER requests the Proxy could have a rule that says always forward them no matter which interface the Proxy receives them on since they are not as risky as INVITES.
If the path is different, the INVITE will go through different networks and they may not behave the same.
I can see 2 possible issues with the network used when VPN is not active:
A NAT has an ALG which, being broken, would drop the INVITE and let the other ones go through. This is unlikely, because it's happening for several User-Agent your tried.
The network is configured to drop packet larger than a specific size. This is very likely because the INVITE, with all User-Agent, is always the largest SIP message being sent.
I would advise you:
Try TCP: This should confirm it's a UDP only issue.
Try to remove all codecs and keep only PCMA, with UDP: if it works, it's likely a UDP/MTU/SIZE issue.
EDIT:
To make it clear, you certainly have an MTU issue.
Thus, I advise you to test your UDP network and the MTU size limit with and without the VPN. You don't have to use your android, but you need to use the same network.
On sip server, starts:
$> nc -u -l -p 2399
On LAN side, any PC with same network with netcat tool...
$> cat invite1000.example | nc -u sip.antisip.com 2399
$> cat invite1200.example | nc -u sip.antisip.com 2399
$> cat invite1500.example | nc -u sip.antisip.com 2399
$> cat invite2000.example | nc -u sip.antisip.com 2399
$> cat invite8000.example | nc -u sip.antisip.com 2399
Make several invitexxx.example files with any data, but with specific number of char in it.
In theory, nc/netcat on the server will stop receiving the packets when going over the MTU (or the packet will be incomplete).
Then, this will confirm it's an MTU issue.
Currently, I faced a problem regarding SRTP outbound call to user (Leg B).
The scenario is like the following:
We set up our own root CA to an IP address (e.g 192.168.0.13)
We create a server certificate for freeswitch at 192.168.0.13
Linphone is used as SIP client and is configured to trust our root CA by default.
(1) Linphone A is configured to register to Freeswitch via TLS + SRTP. (One leg call to server has both SIPs and SRTP – completely secure). (2)
Linphone B is registered to Freeswitch via TLS + SRTP, and waiting for Linphone A to call to.
(One leg call to server, e.g. 9196 (echo test), is completely secure with SRTP + SIPs)
Unfortunately, if A call to B, only A leg has SIPs + SRTP, but Leg B is not encrypted with SRTP and SIPs at all. This causes SRTP unprotect failed with code 7 (auth check failed).
Dialplan Configuration
The dial-string is
Directory Configruation:
<param name="dial-string" value="{rtp_secure_media=${regex(${sofia_contact(${dialed_user}#${dialed_domain})}|transport=tls)},presence_id=${dialed_user}#${dialed_domain}}${sofia_contact(${dialed_user}#${dialed_domain})}" />
My question is that, is there any configuration left that I have to set up in order to let freeswitch initiate an outbound call to Leg B correctly with SRTP and SIPs (tls)?
Any help would be really appreciated
FreeSwitch is not supports SIPs uri.
You can only use SIP+TLS for call signalling. And configure RTP encryption using variable like rtp_secure_media_outbound.
I have installed freeswitch on a machine which is kept in the LAN behind the firewall named PFSense.I was looking in the freeswitch logs and I found that there are some unknown sip request coming from the unknown IP from outside of the network.
I have not done any setting or port forwarding in the pfsense.But don't know why this is happening.Please tell me how can I block those requests.
Thanks
it's most probably just typical port scanners. They scan for port 5060 and then try to send some INVITE or REGISTER requests there. It's quite harmless if your PBX is secure enough.
I've set up a Kamailio v4.0 SIP registrar and proxy for SIP over websockets, and everything is working fine except sending outbound messages or making outbound calls to a SIP address on a foreign domain. I can receive messages and calls from non-local SIP addresses, but not send any out.
I've tried to understand the documentation of various modules like domain and outbound and I'm still stumped. My configuration file is essentially identical to this one.
This feels less like configuration and more like learning a new programming language. Any ideas on how to proceed?
edit: spotted the following in the log file:
INFO: rr [../outbound/api.h:49]: Failed to import bind_ob
INFO: rr [rr_mod.c:159]: outbound module not available
Recompiled with STUN=1 and loaded outbound.so in config (is this barking up the wrong tree?). Now log says:
INFO: rr [rr_mod.c:156]: Bound rr module to outbound module
[...]
WARNING: <core> [msg_translator.c:2499]: TCP/TLS connection (id: 0) for WebSocket could not be found
ERROR: <core> [msg_translator.c:1725]: could not create Via header
ERROR: tm [t_fwd.c:435]: could not build request
The logs suggest that no connection to the WebSocket client can be found. Kamailio cannot open a connection to a WebSocket (webrtc) softphone, if one does not exist, the SIP message cannot be delivered.
You can list active TCP connections using kamcmd tool:
kamcmd core.tcp_list
If you use WebSockets over TLS:
kamcmd tls.list
There is a config function that should be used in this case - set_forward_no_connect() - to avoid getting so far in processing.
I currently have issues with SIP User Agents behind a symmetric NAT connecting to my SIP client, which is an IVR voice service.
I read that Asterisk has a solution for this in the sip.conf, where I can set attribute
nat=yes
and this will ignore the IP and Port in the SIP headers and use the one for the SIP request and also waits for an incoming RTP stream to reply to.
I'd like to make use of this feature as we already have an Asterix server installed for AIX requests.
What would be the minimum configuration required for Asterix to act as the man in the middle on a new port as 5060 will still be used to connect directly to the SIP client? I don't care about authentication etc. I just need the Asterix to act as a SIP relay.
Thanks
K
You may also need to have "canreinvite=no" in the [general] section of your sip.conf.
That setting keeps Asterisk in the call path, otherwise voice traffic may be sent directly from one endpoint to the other.