25 Jun
2007
25 Jun
'07
11:36 a.m.
I'm not sure I understand the trace here. Process 7073 shows several
errors from is_user_in and loose_route. This should indicate that it is
processing a method, not a response. Do you accidentally call a route
meant for forwarding after adding a branch?
g-)
SIP wrote:
We've never seen this one come through before, so
I'm thinking it's in
some way related to the cortelco US that's being used.
Jun 24 10:15:26 proxy ser[7081]: ACC: call missed: method=INVITE,
i-uri=sip:1101XXXXXXX@CLIENT.IP.ADDRESS:60001,
o-uri=sip:1101XXXXXXX@CLIENT.IP.ADDRESS:60001,
call_id=53ca8e9573a1aa535700119a21ce693c(a)CLIENT.IP.ADDRESS,
from=<sip:1315XXXXXXX@our.proxy.com>;tag=as67cfdba3, code=410 Gone
Jun 24 10:15:26 proxy ser[7073]: ERROR: parse_uri: uri too short: <2.0> (3)
Jun 24 10:15:26 proxy ser[7073]: is_user_in(): Error while parsing URI
Jun 24 10:15:26 proxy ser[7073]: ERROR: parse_uri: uri too short: <2.0> (3)
Jun 24 10:15:26 proxy ser[7073]: ERROR: parse_sip_msg_uri: bad uri <2.0>
Jun 24 10:15:26 proxy ser[7073]: loose_route: Error while parsing
Request URI
Jun 24 10:15:26 proxy ser[7073]: ERROR: parse_uri: uri too short: <2.0> (3)
Jun 24 10:15:26 proxy ser[7073]: ERROR: parse_sip_msg_uri: bad uri <2.0>
Jun 24 10:15:26 proxy ser[7073]: WARNING: do_action:error in expression
Jun 24 10:15:26 proxy ser[7073]: ERROR: parse_uri: uri too short: <2.0> (3)
Jun 24 10:15:26 proxy ser[7073]: ERROR: parse_sip_msg_uri: bad uri <2.0>
This is on a response to the reinvite BACK to the local user
(1101XXXXXXX) from the PSTN (1315XXXXXXX).
The actual block looks like:
U CLIENT.IP.ADDRESS:60001 -> OUR.PROXY.IP.ADDRESS:5060
SIP/2.0 410 Gone.
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP OUR.PROXY.IP.ADDRESS:5060;branch=z9hG4bKffae.1a137353.0.
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
OUR.PSTN.GATEWAY.ADDRESS:5090;branch=z9hG4bK338d81c7;rport=5090.
From: <sip:1315XXXXXXX@our.proxy.com>;tag=as67cfdba3.
To: "David Jarrett" <sip:1101XXXXXXX@our.proxy.com>;tag=53c99d61.
Contact: <sip:1101XXXXXXX@CLIENT.IP.ADDRESS:60001>.
Call-ID: 53ca8e9573a1aa535700119a21ce693c(a)CLIENT.IP.ADDRESS.
CSeq: 102 INVITE.
Content-Length: 0.
I'm really not sure which part of the URI is too short (or, to be
honest, why SER spits out that message). Clearly '2.0' is not a valid
URI... but I'm not entirely sure where it's getting that as the URI.
Ideas? We're running 0.9.6.
N.
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
Serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers