linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
To: Kevin Cernekee <cernekee@gmail.com>
Cc: Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru>,
	"Pekka Savola (ipv6)" <pekkas@netcore.fi>,
	James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
	Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org>,
	netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, netfilter@vger.kernel.org,
	coreteam@netfilter.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] netfilter: nf_conntrack_sip: Handle quirky Cisco phones
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2010 09:59:35 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1289725175.2743.65.camel@edumazet-laptop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <28d666269c390965f1a4edca42f93c12@localhost>

Le dimanche 14 novembre 2010 à 00:32 -0800, Kevin Cernekee a écrit :
> Most SIP devices use a source port of 5060/udp on SIP requests, so the
> response automatically comes back to port 5060:
> 
> phone_ip:5060 -> proxy_ip:5060   REGISTER
> proxy_ip:5060 -> phone_ip:5060   100 Trying
> 
> The newer Cisco IP phones, however, use a randomly chosen high source
> port for the SIP request but expect the response on port 5060:
> 
> phone_ip:49173 -> proxy_ip:5060  REGISTER
> proxy_ip:5060 -> phone_ip:5060   100 Trying
> 
> Standard Linux NAT, with or without nf_nat_sip, will send the reply back
> to port 49173, not 5060:
> 
> phone_ip:49173 -> proxy_ip:5060  REGISTER
> proxy_ip:5060 -> phone_ip:49173  100 Trying
> 
> But the phone is not listening on 49173, so it will never see the reply.
> 
> This issue was seen on a Cisco CP-7965G, firmware 8-5(3).  It appears
> to be a well-known problem on 7941 and newer:
> 
> http://www.voip-info.org/wiki/view/Standalone+Cisco+7941%252F7961+without+a+local+PBX
> 
> Search for "Connecting to the outside world"
> 
> I contacted Cisco support and they were not amenable to changing the
> behavior.  It appears to be RFC3261-compliant, as the "Sent-by port"
> field in the request specifies 5060:
> 

There is a difference between being RFC compliant, and being usable.

Most SIP sotfwares I know will break with such a stupid CISCO behavior.



> 18.2.2 Sending Responses
> 
>    The server transport uses the value of the top Via header field in
>    order to determine where to send a response.  It MUST follow the
>    following process:
> 
> ...
> 
>       o  Otherwise (for unreliable unicast transports), if the top Via
>          has a "received" parameter, the response MUST be sent to the
>          address in the "received" parameter, using the port indicated
>          in the "sent-by" value, or using port 5060 if none is specified
>          explicitly.  If this fails, for example, elicits an ICMP "port
>          unreachable" response, the procedures of Section 5 of [4]
>          SHOULD be used to determine where to send the response.
> 
> This patch modifies nf_*_sip to work around this quirk, by rewriting
> the response port to 5060 when the following conditions are met:
> 
>  - User-Agent starts with "Cisco"
> 
>  - Incoming TTL was exactly 64 (meaning that our system is the phone's
>    local router, not an intermediate router)
> 

This seems a hack to me, sorry. How many different vendors will switch
to "Cisco" broken way, and we have to patch over and over ?

I would like to get an exact SIP exchange to make sure their is not
another way to handle this without adding a "Cisco" string somewhere...

Please provide a pcap or tcpdump -A

Thanks



  reply	other threads:[~2010-11-14  8:59 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-11-14  8:32 [PATCH/RFC] netfilter: nf_conntrack_sip: Handle quirky Cisco phones Kevin Cernekee
2010-11-14  8:59 ` Eric Dumazet [this message]
2010-11-14 18:33   ` Kevin Cernekee
2010-11-14 19:57     ` Eric Dumazet
2010-11-15  3:01       ` Kevin Cernekee
2010-11-15 10:15         ` Patrick McHardy
2010-11-15 16:46           ` Kevin Cernekee
2010-11-15 16:58             ` Patrick McHardy
2010-11-15 22:09               ` Kevin Cernekee
2010-11-15  9:51       ` Patrick McHardy

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1289725175.2743.65.camel@edumazet-laptop \
    --to=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
    --cc=cernekee@gmail.com \
    --cc=coreteam@netfilter.org \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=jmorris@namei.org \
    --cc=kaber@trash.net \
    --cc=kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=netfilter@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=pekkas@netcore.fi \
    --cc=yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).