On 06/22/2015 11:41 AM, kai.ohnacker@cbc.de wrote:
In the txt file you can find the ngrep traffic.
Cheers, Kai
Perhaps you have an ngrep of the sip traffic?
--fred
Is .3 the user, .1 the kamailio, and .33 the SBC?
U 2015/06/22 17:08:53.229016 192.168.0.1:5060 -> 192.168.0.33:5060 INVITE sip:1001@192.168.0.33:5060 SIP/2.0 Record-Route: sip:192.168.0.1;lr=on Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.0.1;branch=z9hG4bK3504.df39a8277f82eb6121d9c32883c70ead.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.0.3:6060;branch=z9hG4bK0a9b.47eca853.0 From: "PhonerLite" sip:1000@192.168.1.3:8000;tag=3066030555 To: sip:1001@192.168.1.3:8000 Call-ID: SBCbFhRRnpBd3ZEUWNUVF8gQWVZREoKMXhvWVMSVCUxUzIVWSpCCUJ4cEdWZV1NQ0tFYQ== CSeq: 5 INVITE
U 2015/06/22 17:08:53.239973 192.168.0.33:5060 -> 192.168.0.1:5060 SIP/2.0 200 OK Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.0.1;branch=z9hG4bK3504.df39a8277f82eb6121d9c32883c70ead.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.0.3:6060;branch=z9hG4bK0a9b.47eca853.0 Max-Forwards: 70 To: sip:1001@192.168.1.3:8000;tag=krTfxNsCTuX From: "PhonerLite" sip:1000@192.168.1.3:8000;tag=3066030555 Call-ID: SBCbFhRRnpBd3ZEUWNUVF8gQWVZREoKMXhvWVMSVCUxUzIVWSpCCUJ4cEdWZV1NQ0tFYQ CSeq: 1
It almost looks like the SBC is replying with a register request (which is being responded with a correct CSeq increment).
On the invite initially sent to the SBC with a 5, the sbc responds with a 1.
--fred