Description of problem: A Record-Route header field exists in 200 OK from opensips-1.6.2-1.fc13 register server after sending a REGISTER request with a Record-Route header field. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): How reproducible: Steps to Reproduce: 1. 2. 3. Actual results: 1 Test topology: A Record-Route header field exists in 200 OK from opensips-1.6.2-1.fc13 register server after sending a REGISTER request with a Record-Route header field. NUT(REG && PX) UA11 UA12 DNS | | | | IP : 3ffe:501:ffff:50::50 3ffe:501:ffff:1::1 3ffe:501:ffff:2::2 3ffe:501:ffff:4::1 aor-uri : ss.under.test.com UA11.com UA12.com contact-uri : UA11.test.com UA12.test.com 2 the test result can be seen as follows: NUT UA11 UA12 UA13 UA14 PX2 PX3 PX4 DNS No time | | | | | | | | | No time | | | | | | | | | [0001: 0.00| ] |----|----|----|----|----|----|----|--->| DNS(query) Q:ss.under.test.com. A: [0002: 0.00| ] |<---|----|----|----|----|----|----|----| DNS(reply) Q:ss.under.test.com. A:No Host [0003: 0.00| ] |----|----|----|----|----|----|----|--->| DNS(query) Q:ss.under.test.com.localdomain. A: [0004: 0.00| ] |<---|----|----|----|----|----|----|----| DNS(reply) Q:ss.under.test.com.localdomain. A:No Host [0005: 0.00| ] |----|----|----|----|----|----|----|--->| DNS(query) Q:ss.under.test.com. A: [0006: 0.00| ] |<---|----|----|----|----|----|----|----| DNS(reply) Q:ss.under.test.com. A:No Host [0007: 0.00| ] |----|----|----|----|----|----|----|--->| DNS(query) Q:ss.under.test.com.localdomain. A: [0008: 0.00| ] |<---|----|----|----|----|----|----|----| DNS(reply) Q:ss.under.test.com.localdomain. A:No Host [0009: 3.11|U ] REGIS |<---| | | | | | | | REGISTER sip:ss.under.test.com:5060 [0010: 3.11|U ] 401 |--->| | | | | | | | 401 Unauthorized (REGISTER) [0011: 3.19|U ] REGIS |<---| | | | | | | | REGISTER sip:ss.under.test.com:5060 [0012: 3.19|U ] 200 |--->| | | | | | | | 200 OK (REGISTER) 0009: <UA11 REGISTER sip:ss.under.test.com:5060 SIP/2.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP node.under.test.com:5060;branch=z9hG4bKPUA3440342 Max-Forwards: 70 Record-Route: <example.under.test.com;lr> From: UA11 <sip:UA11.com>;tag=11242 To: UA11 <sip:UA11.com> Call-ID: 11242.com CSeq: 1 REGISTER Contact: <sip:UA11.test.com;transport=udp> Expires: 3600 Content-Length: 0 0010: >UA11 SIP/2.0 401 Unauthorized Via: SIP/2.0/UDP node.under.test.com:5060;branch=z9hG4bKPUA3440342;received=3FFE:501:FFFF:1:0:0:0:1 From: UA11 <sip:UA11.com>;tag=11242 To: UA11 <sip:UA11.com>;tag=342e93888690910a050457d333be0c5a.05e5 Call-ID: 11242.com CSeq: 1 REGISTER WWW-Authenticate: Digest realm="under.test.com", nonce="4c2304c300000000f0cf7e50c3b7239f24977828d8c2d1a2", qop="auth" Server: OpenSIPS (1.6.2-tls (i386/linux)) Content-Length: 0 0011: <UA11 REGISTER sip:ss.under.test.com:5060 SIP/2.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP node.under.test.com:5060;branch=z9hG4bKPUA3440343 Max-Forwards: 70 Record-Route: <example.under.test.com;lr> Authorization: Digest username="UA11", realm="under.test.com", qop=auth, nonce="4c2304c300000000f0cf7e50c3b7239f24977828d8c2d1a2", opaque="", nc=00000001, cnonce="6f54a149", uri="sip:ss.under.test.com:5060", response="4cbb733026c8ec82e3c2a9c755c3a688" From: UA11 <sip:UA11.com>;tag=11242 To: UA11 <sip:UA11.com> Call-ID: 11242.com CSeq: 2 REGISTER Contact: <sip:UA11.test.com;transport=udp> Expires: 3600 Content-Length: 0 0012: >UA11 SIP/2.0 200 OK Via: SIP/2.0/UDP node.under.test.com:5060;branch=z9hG4bKPUA3440343;received=3FFE:501:FFFF:1:0:0:0:1 Record-Route: <example.under.test.com;lr> From: UA11 <sip:UA11.com>;tag=11242 To: UA11 <sip:UA11.com>;tag=342e93888690910a050457d333be0c5a.9df4 Call-ID: 11242.com CSeq: 2 REGISTER Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 07:09:25 GMT Contact: <sip:UA11.test.com;transport=udp>;expires=3600 Server: OpenSIPS (1.6.2-tls (i386/linux)) Content-Length: 0 Expected results: A Record-Route header field should not exist in 200 OK from opensips-1.6.2-1.fc13 register server after sending a REGISTER request with a Record-Route header field. Additional info:
Created attachment 427863 [details] opensips configuration file
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 19 development cycle. Changing version to '19'. (As we did not run this process for some time, it could affect also pre-Fedora 19 development cycle bugs. We are very sorry. It will help us with cleanup during Fedora 19 End Of Life. Thank you.) More information and reason for this action is here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping/Fedora19
This report is filed against a very old OpenSIPS. I can't confirm if it's still valid or not. Anyway it seems that this issue is better to discuss with upstream.