< Previous by Date	Date Index	Next by Date >
< Previous in Thread	Thread Index	Next in Thread >

Re: [SFTF] Case 604c

From: Ramesh Ramamurthy <ramesh@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2004 09:53:33 -0700

Hi all,
   Here is the capture for the error.

cheers
Ramesh

Nils Ohlmeier wrote:

Hi Ramesh,

without seeing the Record-Route and the Route it is impossible to judge. When you post a SIP trace of the test someone should be able to help you to identify the problem.
Regards
 Nils
On Thursday 02 December 2004 17:24, Ramesh Ramamurthy wrote:
Hi,
   I think there is an error in this when it compares the Record-Route
sent in INVITE with the Route sent in BYE. In sectiuon12.1.2 Paragraph 3
it states that the Route set should be in the  reverse order or the
Record-Route. When I send the route in the reverse order the test case
calls it a failure. Am I  reading the RFC wrong or is this an error in
the test case?
Cheers Ramesh _______________________________________________ sftf-dev mailing list sftf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sftf-dev Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sftf-dev/

Dec 03 09:51:31: ======================
Dec 03 09:51:31: SFTF.run(): v0.9.3 started
Dec 03 09:51:32: SFTF.run(): read in test cases: [<case603s.case603s instance at 0xf6d2fa8c>]
Dec 03 09:51:32: SFTF.run(): running these tests: [<case603s.case603s instance at 0xf6d2fa8c>]
Dec 03 09:51:32: ===================
Dec 03 09:51:32: starting test: Case 603s ...
Dec 03 09:51:32: TestCase.readMessageFromNetwork(): setting default timeout to 0.5
Dec 03 09:51:32: Listening for incoming UDP message on 172.28.30.162:5060...
Dec 03 09:51:32: NetworkEventHandler.readEvent(): WARNING: timeout after 0.5 seconds
Dec 03 09:51:32: Listening for incoming UDP message on 172.28.30.162:5060...
Dec 03 09:51:33: NetworkEventHandler.readEvent(): WARNING: timeout after 1.0 seconds
Dec 03 09:51:33: Listening for incoming UDP message on 172.28.30.162:5060...
Dec 03 09:51:35: NetworkEventHandler.readEvent(): WARNING: timeout after 2.0 seconds
Dec 03 09:51:35: Listening for incoming UDP message on 172.28.30.162:5060...
Dec 03 09:51:36: received:
INVITE sip:3016200@xxxxxxxxxxxxx:5060 SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 172.28.30.163;branch=z9hG4bK57a8c5c89de481f510bfc5d0b8000993
From: <sip:172.28.30.163:5060;user=phone>;tag=GR52RWG346-34
To: "3016200" <sip:3016200@xxxxxxxxxxxxx:5060>
Call-ID: 951432@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
CSeq: 1 INVITE
Contact: <sip:172.28.30.163:5060>
Content-Type: application/sdp
Content-Length:   258

v=0
o=Clarent 95338 95339 IN IP4 172.28.34.185
s=Clarent C5CM
c=IN IP4 172.28.34.185
t=0 0
m=audio 40404 RTP/AVP 18 0 4 97
a=rtpmap:18 G729/8000
a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000
a=rtpmap:4 G723/8000
a=rtpmap:97 telephone-event/8000
a=fmtp:97 0-15
a=SendRecv

Dec 03 09:51:36: TestCase.parseMessage(): HF: Via, mapped: Via
Dec 03 09:51:36: TestCase.parseMessage(): HF: From, mapped: From
Dec 03 09:51:36: TestCase.parseMessage(): HF: Callid, mapped: Callid
Dec 03 09:51:37: TestCase.parseMessage(): HF: Contentlength, mapped: Contentlength
Dec 03 09:51:37: TestCase.parseMessage(): HF: To, mapped: To
Dec 03 09:51:37: TestCase.parseMessage(): HF: Contact, mapped: Contact
Dec 03 09:51:37: TestCase.parseMessage(): HF: Cseq, mapped: Cseq
Dec 03 09:51:37: TestCase.parseMessage(): HF: Contenttype, mapped: Contenttype
Dec 03 09:51:37: TestCase.addMessage(): dialog tag matching failed, falling back to 2543 matching
Dec 03 09:51:37: TestCase.addMessage(): no matching dialog found => creating new one
Dec 03 09:51:37: newDialog(): added new dialog number 0
Dec 03 09:51:37: TestCase.addMessage(): finding transaction by branch failed, trying by brute force
Dec 03 09:51:37: TestCase.addMessage(): dialog without transaction => creating new one
Dec 03 09:51:37: TestCase.addMessage(): no matching transaction found => creating a new one
Dec 03 09:51:37: Transaction.appendMessage(): isClient set to False
Dec 03 09:51:37: Dialog.appendTransaction(): localUri: [displayname:'3016200', uri:'[protocol:'sip', username:'3016200', password:'None', host:'172.28.30.162', ipv6:'False', port:'5060', params:'[]', headers:'[]']', tag:'None', params:'[]']
Dec 03 09:51:37: Dialog.appendTransaction(): remoteUri: [displayname:'None', uri:'[protocol:'sip', username:'None', password:'None', host:'172.28.30.163', ipv6:'False', port:'5060', params:'['user=phone']', headers:'[]']', tag:'GR52RWG346-34', params:'[]']
Dec 03 09:51:37: Dialog.buildRouteSet(): called for server side
Dec 03 09:51:37: Dialog.buildRouteSet(): firstRequest has no parsed Record-Route
Dec 03 09:51:37: Dialog.buildRouteSet(): remoteContact update in isServer
Dec 03 09:51:37: Transaction.createReply(): entered with code='200', reason='OK', createEvent='True'
Dec 03 09:51:37: TestCase.parseMessage(): HF: Via, mapped: Via
Dec 03 09:51:37: TestCase.parseMessage(): HF: From, mapped: From
Dec 03 09:51:37: TestCase.parseMessage(): HF: Callid, mapped: Callid
Dec 03 09:51:37: TestCase.parseMessage(): HF: Contentlength, mapped: Contentlength
Dec 03 09:51:37: TestCase.parseMessage(): HF: To, mapped: To
Dec 03 09:51:37: TestCase.parseMessage(): HF: Contact, mapped: Contact
Dec 03 09:51:37: TestCase.parseMessage(): HF: Cseq, mapped: Cseq
Dec 03 09:51:37: TestCase.addMessage(): dialog tag matching failed, falling back to 2543 matching
Dec 03 09:51:37: TestCase.addMessage(): dialog found by parsed Call-ID
Dec 03 09:51:37: TestCase.addMessage(): transaction found by branch
Dec 03 09:51:37: TestCase.addMessage(): appending message to found transaction
Dec 03 09:51:37: Transaction.appendMessage(): updating localUri from reply
Dec 03 09:51:37: Transaction.appendMessage(): using existing CSeq number
Dec 03 09:51:37: Dialog.buildRouteSet(): called for server side
Dec 03 09:51:37: Dialog.buildRouteSet(): firstRequest has no parsed Record-Route
Dec 03 09:51:37: Dialog.buildRouteSet(): remoteContact update in isServer
Dec 03 09:51:37: TestCase.addResource(): adding resource to MediaSockets list
Dec 03 09:51:37: Sending UDP message from 172.28.30.162:5060 to 172.28.30.163:5060 ...
Dec 03 09:51:37: message length = 721 bytes, sent 721 bytes
Dec 03 09:51:37: sent:
SIP/2.0 200 OK
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 172.28.30.163;branch=z9hG4bK57a8c5c89de481f510bfc5d0b8000993
From: <sip:172.28.30.163:5060;user=phone>;tag=GR52RWG346-34
Record-Route: <sip:proxy01.example.com;lr>, <sip:proxy02.example.com;lr>, <sip:proxy03.example.com;lr>, <sip:proxy04.example.com;lr>, <sip:172.28.30.162:5060;lr>
Call-ID: 951432@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Content-Length: 163
To: "3016200" <sip:3016200@xxxxxxxxxxxxx:5060>;tag=SCt-0-1102092697.72-172.28.30.162~case603s
Contact: <sip:3016200@xxxxxxxxxxxxx:5060>
CSeq: 1 INVITE
Content-Type: application/sdp

v=0
o=sc 1102092697 1102092697 IN IP4 172.28.30.162
s=Media dummy SDP
c=IN IP4 172.28.30.162
t=0 0
m=audio 65534 RTP/AVP 0
a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000
a=recvonly

Dec 03 09:51:37: TestCase.readMessageFromNetwork(): setting default timeout to 0.5
Dec 03 09:51:37: Listening for incoming UDP message on 172.28.30.162:5060...
Dec 03 09:51:37: received:
ACK sip:3016200@xxxxxxxxxxxxx:5060 SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 172.28.30.163;branch=z9hG4bKad5146e70a91dc84bc47c314653e8673
Route: <sip:proxy01.example.com:5060;lr>
Route: <sip:proxy02.example.com:5060;lr>
Route: <sip:proxy03.example.com:5060;lr>
Route: <sip:proxy04.example.com:5060;lr>
Route: <sip:172.28.30.162:5060;lr>
From: <sip:172.28.30.163:5060;user=phone>;tag=GR52RWG346-34
To: "3016200" <sip:3016200@xxxxxxxxxxxxx:5060>;tag=SCt-0-1102092697.72-172.28.30.162~case603s
Call-ID: 951432@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
CSeq: 1 ACK
Contact: <sip:172.28.30.163:5060>


Dec 03 09:51:37: TestCase.parseMessage(): HF: Via, mapped: Via
Dec 03 09:51:37: TestCase.parseMessage(): HF: From, mapped: From
Dec 03 09:51:37: TestCase.parseMessage(): HF: Callid, mapped: Callid
Dec 03 09:51:37: TestCase.parseMessage(): HF: Route, mapped: Route
Dec 03 09:51:38: TestCase.parseMessage(): HF: To, mapped: To
Dec 03 09:51:38: TestCase.parseMessage(): HF: Contact, mapped: Contact
Dec 03 09:51:38: TestCase.parseMessage(): HF: Cseq, mapped: Cseq
Dec 03 09:51:38: TestCase.addMessage(): dialog found by To/From tag
Dec 03 09:51:38: TestCase.addMessage(): finding transaction by branch failed, trying by brute force
Dec 03 09:51:38: TestCase.addMessage(): appending message to found transaction
Dec 03 09:51:38: Transaction.appendMessage(): using existing CSeq number
Dec 03 09:51:38: Dialog.buildRouteSet(): called for server side
Dec 03 09:51:38: Dialog.buildRouteSet(): firstRequest has no parsed Record-Route
Dec 03 09:51:38: Dialog.buildRouteSet(): remoteContact update in isServer
Dec 03 09:51:38: TestCase.readMessageFromNetwork(): setting default timeout to 0.5
Dec 03 09:51:38: Listening for incoming UDP message on 172.28.30.162:5060...
Dec 03 09:51:38: NetworkEventHandler.readEvent(): WARNING: timeout after 0.5 seconds
Dec 03 09:51:38: Listening for incoming UDP message on 172.28.30.162:5060...
Dec 03 09:51:39: received:
BYE sip:3016200@xxxxxxxxxxxxx:5060 SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 172.28.30.163;branch=z9hG4bKf75794ee8b8cebd3f6c5ca8a82760612
Route: <sip:proxy01.example.com:5060;lr>
Route: <sip:proxy02.example.com:5060;lr>
Route: <sip:proxy03.example.com:5060;lr>
Route: <sip:proxy04.example.com:5060;lr>
Route: <sip:172.28.30.162:5060;lr>
From: <sip:172.28.30.163:5060;user=phone>;tag=GR52RWG346-34
To: "3016200" <sip:3016200@xxxxxxxxxxxxx:5060>;tag=SCt-0-1102092697.72-172.28.30.162~case603s
Call-ID: 951432@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
CSeq: 2 BYE


Dec 03 09:51:39: TestCase.parseMessage(): HF: Via, mapped: Via
Dec 03 09:51:39: TestCase.parseMessage(): HF: From, mapped: From
Dec 03 09:51:39: TestCase.parseMessage(): HF: Callid, mapped: Callid
Dec 03 09:51:39: TestCase.parseMessage(): HF: Route, mapped: Route
Dec 03 09:51:39: TestCase.parseMessage(): HF: To, mapped: To
Dec 03 09:51:39: TestCase.parseMessage(): HF: Cseq, mapped: Cseq
Dec 03 09:51:39: TestCase.addMessage(): dialog found by To/From tag
Dec 03 09:51:39: TestCase.addMessage(): finding transaction by branch failed, trying by brute force
Dec 03 09:51:39: TestCase.addMessage(): no matching transaction found => creating a new one
Dec 03 09:51:39: Transaction.appendMessage(): isClient set to False
Dec 03 09:51:39: case603s: sending 200 for BYE
Dec 03 09:51:39: Transaction.createReply(): entered with code='200', reason='OK', createEvent='True'
Dec 03 09:51:39: TestCase.parseMessage(): HF: Via, mapped: Via
Dec 03 09:51:39: TestCase.parseMessage(): HF: From, mapped: From
Dec 03 09:51:39: TestCase.parseMessage(): HF: Callid, mapped: Callid
Dec 03 09:51:39: TestCase.parseMessage(): HF: Contentlength, mapped: Contentlength
Dec 03 09:51:39: TestCase.parseMessage(): HF: To, mapped: To
Dec 03 09:51:39: TestCase.parseMessage(): HF: Contact, mapped: Contact
Dec 03 09:51:39: TestCase.parseMessage(): HF: Cseq, mapped: Cseq
Dec 03 09:51:39: TestCase.addMessage(): dialog found by To/From tag
Dec 03 09:51:39: TestCase.addMessage(): transaction found by branch
Dec 03 09:51:39: TestCase.addMessage(): appending message to found transaction
Dec 03 09:51:39: Transaction.appendMessage(): using existing CSeq number
Dec 03 09:51:39: Sending UDP message from 172.28.30.162:5060 to 172.28.30.163:5060 ...
Dec 03 09:51:39: message length = 368 bytes, sent 368 bytes
Dec 03 09:51:39: sent:
SIP/2.0 200 OK
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 172.28.30.163;branch=z9hG4bKf75794ee8b8cebd3f6c5ca8a82760612
From: <sip:172.28.30.163:5060;user=phone>;tag=GR52RWG346-34
Call-ID: 951432@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Content-Length: 0
To: "3016200" <sip:3016200@xxxxxxxxxxxxx:5060>;tag=SCt-0-1102092697.72-172.28.30.162~case603s
Contact: <sip:sc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx:5060;transport=UDP>
CSeq: 2 BYE


Dec 03 09:51:39: TestCase.addResult(): result:2 reason:'Route header is not equal with the Record-Route header from INVITE'

Dec 03 09:51:32: configuring tests ...
Dec 03 09:51:32: ===================
Dec 03 09:51:32: starting test: Case 603s ...
Dec 03 09:51:39: Failed: Route header is not equal with the Record-Route header from INVITE
Dec 03 09:51:39: 'Case 603s' result = Failed
Dec 03 09:51:39: ===================
Dec 03 09:51:39: Case 603s:	[Failed]
Dec 03 09:51:39:   Description: Correct loose routing
Dec 03 09:51:39: 		[Failed] : Route header is not equal with the Record-Route header from INVITE
Dec 03 09:51:39: --------------------------------------------

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [SFTF] Case 604c
  - From: Nils Ohlmeier

References:
- [SFTF] Case 604c
  - From: Ramesh Ramamurthy
- Re: [SFTF] Case 604c
  - From: Nils Ohlmeier

Prev by Date: Re: [SFTF] Some explanation please.
Next by Date: Re: [SFTF] Case 604c
Previous by thread: Re: [SFTF] Case 604c
Next by thread: Re: [SFTF] Case 604c
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread