22 Jun
2015
22 Jun
'15
12:36 p.m.
On 06/22/2015 11:41 AM, kai.ohnacker(a)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