Skip to main content

CANCELing a call - Trip-wires for the SIP fans

SIP is a relatively simple, text-based, human readable protocol that is now the standard de facto for VoIP signalling.
The protocol though (in my opinion!) is a little tricky, where typically the tricks are: details.

In this first post of a series of "Trip-wires for the SIP fans", I'll talk about CANCEL.

The main concept is easy: a caller may decide to cancel a call before this is answered. To do this, it sends a CANCEL request to the called party.

What's important to know is that:
A CANCEL request relates to an INVITE request, and does not relate to the SIP dialog the request may have created (or will create).

For this reason the To header tag must be the same as the INVITE request, even if meanwhile there's been a provisional response to the INVITE creating a dialog (e.g. a 180 with a tag in the To header).

From RFC 3261, 9.1:
The following procedures are used to construct a CANCEL request.  The
   Request-URI, Call-ID, To, the numeric part of CSeq, and From header
   fields in the CANCEL request MUST be identical to those in the
   request being cancelled, including tags.  A CANCEL constructed by a
   client MUST have only a single Via header field value matching the
   top Via value in the request being cancelled.  Using the same values
   for these header fields allows the CANCEL to be matched with the
   request it cancels [...].

Although not so common I guess, consider that a CANCEL can be sent also for a re-INVITE (i.e. a request to update an ongoing session, e.g. to add video). In this case there will be a tag in the To header, as the INVITE is an in-dialog request and the CANCEL just refers to it.

And if you use sipp unfortunately no, you can't rely on the [branch] syntax to assign a branch to the Via in the CANCEL request, because sipp doesn't have perception of precedent open transactions.
If the branch in the CANCEL's Via header is different than the one in the INVITE top most Via, the UAS will not be able to match the two requests and canceling will (most likely) fail.


Labels:

Popular posts from this blog

Troubleshooting TURN

  WebRTC applications use the ICE negotiation to discovery the best way to communicate with a remote party. I t dynamically finds a pair of candidates (IP address, port and transport, also known as “transport address”) suitable for exchanging media and data. The most important aspect of this is “dynamically”: a local and a remote transport address are found based on the network conditions at the time of establishing a session. For example, a WebRTC client that normally uses a server reflexive transport address to communicate with an SFU. when running inside the home office, may use a relay transport address over TCP when running inside an office network which limits remote UDP targets. The same configuration (defined as “iceServers” when creating an RTCPeerConnection will work in both cases, producing different outcomes.
Read more

Extracting RTP streams from network captures

I needed an efficient way to programmatically extract RTP streams from a network capture. In addition I wanted to: save each stream into a separate pcap file. extract SRTP-negotiated keys if present and available in the trace, associating them to the related RTP (or SRTP if the negotiation succeeded) stream. Some caveats: In normal conditions the negotiation of SRTP sessions happens via a secure transport, typically SIP over TLS, so the exchanged crypto information may not be available from a simple network capture. There are ways to extract RTP streams using Wireshark or tcpdump; it’s not necessary to do it programmatically. All this said I wrote a small tool ( https://github.com/giavac/pcap_tool ) that parses a network capture and tries to interpret each packet as either RTP/SRTP or SIP, and does two main things: save each detected RTP/SRTP stream into a dedicated pcap file, which name contains the related SSRC. print a summary of the crypto information exchanged, if available. With ...
Read more

Testing SIP platforms and pjsip

There are various levels of testing, from unit to component, from integration to end-to-end, not to mention performance testing and fuzzing. When developing or maintaining Real Time Communications (RTC or VoIP) systems,  all these levels (with the exclusion maybe of unit testing) are made easier by applications explicitly designed for this, like sipp . sipp has a deep focus on performance testing, or using a simpler term, load testing. Some of its features allow to fine tune properties like call rate, call duration, simulate packet loss, ramp up traffic, etc. In practical terms though once you have the flexibility to generate SIP signalling to negotiate sessions and RTP streams, you can use sipp for functional testing too. sipp can act as an entity generating a call, or receiving a call, which makes it suitable to surround the system under test and simulate its interactions with the real world. What sipp does can be generalised: we want to be able to simulate the real world tha...
Read more