Sure...
SER: REGISTER sip:xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx SIP/2.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.0.4:5060;branch=z9hG4bKd9e688a70 Max-Forwards: 70 Content-Length: 0 To: 5008 sip:18182002@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx From: 5008 sip:18182002@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx;tag=1f55b6cd5586c2d Call-ID: 928d75b5b6c7d128a0ccaf24e5b52c74@192.168.0.4 CSeq: 1028949335 REGISTER Contact: 5008 sip:18182002@192.168.0.4:5060;user=phone;expires=60 Allow: NOTIFY Allow: REFER Allow: OPTIONS Allow: INVITE Allow: ACK Allow: CANCEL Allow: BYE User-Agent: InterEdge-ieta200
ASTERISK: REGISTER sip:xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx SIP/2.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.0.4;branch=z9hG4bKf91124aeb Max-Forwards: 70 Content-Length: 0 To: 603200661 sip:603200661@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx From: 603200661 sip:603200661@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx;tag=7f4a78971dd573b Call-ID: 59a4ee90d5fbe74f8de459fb2506acf0@192.168.0.4 CSeq: 937060361 REGISTER Contact: 603200661 sip:603200661@192.168.0.4;user=phone;expires=1200 Allow: NOTIFY Allow: REFER Allow: OPTIONS Allow: INVITE Allow: ACK Allow: CANCEL Allow: BYE Authorization:Digest response="869ebcdfd4f83cfd805c0b03e768b9a5",username="603200661",realm="xxx" ,nonce="297966ac",uri="sip:xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx" User-Agent: InterEdge-ieta200
Regards, Chia
-----Original Message----- From: 'Jan Janak' [mailto:jan@iptel.org] Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 5:44 PM To: Chia Huey Lim Cc: 'Juan Carlos Castro y Castro'; serusers@lists.iptel.org Subject: Re: [Serusers] SER losing SIP registrations
Could send me also the REGISTER messages ?
Jan.
On 23-06-2005 17:36, Chia Huey Lim wrote:
I am facing the same problem too, one of the UA that I am testing on does not re-register itself. It has no problem re-registering itself to
asterisk.
I compared the ethereal trace for the registration on SER and Asterisk.
And
I found that Asterisk append "Expires: xxx" above the "Contact: " while
SER
does not. Anything that I can do to append "Expires: xxx" in the 200 ok packet that SER is sending out?
Below is the comparison:
SER: ĸe`SIP/2.0 200 OK Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
192.168.0.4:5060;branch=z9hG4bKef17e9623;rport=32914;received=xxx.xxx.xxx.xx
x To: 5008 sip:18182002@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx;tag=856642a4d7f9f16db9502202a011388b.db9a From: 5008 sip:18182002@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx;tag=1f55b6cd5586c2d Call-ID: 928d75b5b6c7d128a0ccaf24e5b52c74@192.168.0.4 CSeq: 1028949336 REGISTER
Contact:sip:18182002@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:32914;user=phone;expires=60;received=
"sip:xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:32914" Server: Sip EXpress router (0.9.0 (i386/linux)) Content-Length: 0
ASTERISK: ÄÄ x9SIP/2.0 200 OK Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.0.4;branch=z9hG4bKf91124aeb;received=xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx;rport=32914 From: 603200661 sip:603200661@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx;tag=7f4a78971dd573b To: 603200661 sip:603200661@xxx.xxx.xxxx.xxx;tag=as4f0c60fe Call-ID: 59a4ee90d5fbe74f8de459fb2506acf0@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx CSeq: 937060361 REGISTER User-Agent: xxx Allow: INVITE, ACK, CANCEL, OPTIONS, BYE, REFER Expires: 1200 Contact: sip:603200661@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx;user=phone;expires=1200 Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 04:36:20 GMT Content-Length: 0
Thanks.
Regards, Chia
-----Original Message----- From: serusers-bounces@iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org] On Behalf Of Jan Janak Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 4:39 PM To: Juan Carlos Castro y Castro Cc: serusers@lists.iptel.org Subject: Re: [Serusers] SER losing SIP registrations
On 22-06-2005 17:57, Juan Carlos Castro y Castro wrote:
Our company has a call center implementation on a client with up to 100 support personnel using X-Lite version 1050 softphones running under Windows 98. Until a few days ago, the softphones were logged in directly on our PBXs. Now, they log onto a separate SER 0.8.14 box and the PBXs forward calls to SER. That was needed to unify queue management.
It works. But some softphones are being randomly kicked out of SER, it seems SER isn't receiving the refresh REGISTER messages from the softphones. The re-register timeout is set to 500 seconds on the softphones. There's a lot of "removing spare zombie" and "Binding '<user>','<url>' has expired" messages in /var/log/messages.
The message means that SER did not receive REGISTER re-fresh and is thus removing the contact from the user location database.
Pick one user agent that has this problem and install ngrep monitor on the server to monitor all REGISTER messages from that user agent. This way you could find out if the problem is in the user agent or network (in this case you will not see REGISTER refresh messages on the server) or in SER (in that case you will see them but SER probably fails to process them).
Also make sure that SER is not configured to shorten the registration period. When registrar receives a REGISTER message, it is free to use shorter expires value for the Contac than what was suggested by the user agent in the request. In this case the real expires value of the contact will be in 200 OK and user agents are suppose to pick it up from there and update the refresh interval accordingly. This may not work in the case when Contact IP address is rewritten by the server for the purpose of NAT traversal. In this case the user agent will be unable to find its contact (because it has been rewritten) and will not update the refresh interval (resulting in expired registrations).
For now, we're instructing the client to increase the timeout to 10 hours on the softphones in which the problem happens most often. I don't know if that's really the right thing to do, I think we should somehow make sure the re-registers are done in a timely fashion and retried, but I could not find ant SER configuration option related to that. What should I do?
You can configure the maximum allowed expires value in SER, if a user agent tries to REGISTER a contact with longer expires value than it will be automatically updated by registrar to the value of max_expires parameter.
There is also min_expires parameter in registrar module but that one should not be used because the current implementation violates RFC3261.
If you are using any of the two parameter than it might be a good idea to retry without them (to see if the problem persists).
Jan.