15 Dec
2010
15 Dec
'10
2 p.m.
Hi!
I tested with sipp a simple scenario and detected 2 strange issues:
U 2010/12/15 12:53:28.887255 83.136.32.148:5061 -> 83.136.32.148:5060
SUBSCRIBE sip:klaus3000@a1.net SIP/2.0.
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 83.136.32.148:5061;branch=z9hG4bK-8140-1-0.
From: <sip:klaus3000@a1.net>;tag=1.
To: <sip:test_ipcom@a1.net>.
Call-ID: 1-8140(a)83.136.32.148.
CSeq: 1 SUBSCRIBE.
Contact: sip:foobar@83.136.32.148:5061.
Content-Length: 0.
Expires: 90.
Event: presence.
Accept: application/pidf+xml, application/xpidf+xml.
Supported: eventlist.
Accept: application/rlmi+xml.
Accept: multipart/related.
.
#
U 2010/12/15 12:53:28.959045 83.136.32.148:5060 -> 83.136.32.148:5061
SIP/2.0 200 OK.
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 83.136.32.148:5061;branch=z9hG4bK-8140-1-0.
From: <sip:klaus3000@a1.net>;tag=1.
To: <sip:test_ipcom@a1.net>;tag=86f18ea7b9f37b01834bd9036fb6c8f3-8bc8.
Call-ID: 1-8140(a)83.136.32.148.
CSeq: 1 SUBSCRIBE.
Expires: 90.
Contact: <sip:foobar@83.136.32.148:5061>.
Require: eventlist.
Server: kamailio (3.1.1 (i386/linux)).
Content-Length: 0.
.
U 2010/12/15 12:53:28.969138 83.136.32.148:5060 -> 83.136.32.148:5061
NOTIFY sip:foobar@83.136.32.148:5061 SIP/2.0.
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 83.136.32.148;branch=z9hG4bK7f54.f84fd565.0.
To: sip:klaus3000@a1.net;tag=1.
From: sip:test_ipcom@a1.net;tag=86f18ea7b9f37b01834bd9036fb6c8f3-8bc8.
CSeq: 1 NOTIFY.
Call-ID: 1-8140(a)83.136.32.148.
Content-Length: 418.
User-Agent: kamailio (3.1.1 (i386/linux)).
Max-Forwards: 70.
Event: presence.
Contact: <sip:83.136.32.148:5060;transport=udp>.
Subscription-State: active;expires=90.
Require: eventlist.
Content-Type: "multipart/related;type="application/rlmi+xml";start=
<1292414008.sip:klaus3000@a1.net.1594182384>;boundary=QUaqGeLBLc3NtSZsiWrjFAnu.
.
--QUaqGeLBLc3NtSZsiWrjFAnu.
Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary.
Content-ID: <1292414008.sip:klaus3000@a1.net.1594182384>.
Content-Type: application/rlmi+xml;charset="UTF-8r".
.
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<list uri="sip:klaus3000@a1.net"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rlmi"
version="1" fullState="true">
<resource uri="sip:asdfasf@a1.net"/>
<resource uri="sip:test_ipcom@a1.net"/>
</list>
.
--QUaqGeLBLc3NtSZsiWrjFAnu--.
#
U 2010/12/15 12:53:28.969304 83.136.32.148:5061 -> 83.136.32.148:5060
SIP/2.0 200 OK.
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 83.136.32.148;branch=z9hG4bK7f54.f84fd565.0.
From: sip:test_ipcom@a1.net;tag=86f18ea7b9f37b01834bd9036fb6c8f3-8bc8.
To: sip:klaus3000@a1.net;tag=1;tag=1.
Call-ID: 1-8140(a)83.136.32.148.
CSeq: 1 NOTIFY.
Contact: sip:foobar@83.136.32.148:5061.
Content-Length: 0.
.
##
U 2010/12/15 12:53:33.970997 83.136.32.148:5061 -> 83.136.32.148:5060
SUBSCRIBE sip:klaus3000@a1.net SIP/2.0.
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 83.136.32.148:5061;branch=z9hG4bK-8140-1-6.
From: <sip:klaus3000@a1.net>;tag=1.
To: <sip:test_ipcom@a1.net>;tag=86f18ea7b9f37b01834bd9036fb6c8f3-8bc8.
Call-ID: 1-8140(a)83.136.32.148.
CSeq: 2 SUBSCRIBE.
Contact: sip:foobar@83.136.32.148:5061.
Content-Length: 0.
Expires: 0.
Event: presence.
Accept: application/pidf+xml, application/xpidf+xml.
Supported: eventlist.
Accept: application/rlmi+xml.
Accept: multipart/related.
.
#
U 2010/12/15 12:53:33.972115 83.136.32.148:5060 -> 83.136.32.148:5061
SIP/2.0 400 Stale Cseq Value.
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 83.136.32.148:5061;branch=z9hG4bK-8140-1-6.
From: <sip:klaus3000@a1.net>;tag=1.
To: <sip:test_ipcom@a1.net>;tag=86f18ea7b9f37b01834bd9036fb6c8f3-8bc8.
Call-ID: 1-8140(a)83.136.32.148.
CSeq: 2 SUBSCRIBE.
Server: kamailio (3.1.1 (i386/linux)).
Content-Length: 0.
.
1. Why is the Contact header in 200 OK (SUBSCRIBE) wrong? Looks like
Kamailio just copies the received contact header instead putting itself
into contact.
2. Why does Kamailio reply with "400 Stale Cseq Value." on the
reSUBSCRIBE? CSeq is fine.
regards
Klaus