Hello,
parameters in the Via header have nothing to do with authentication. It
seems that the key log messages are in Asterisk:
[Jan 21 23:13:20] NOTICE[20785][C-00000001] acl.c: SIP Peer ACL:
Rejecting '10.0.1.30' due to a failure to pass ACL '(BASELINE)'
[Jan 21 23:13:20] NOTICE[20785][C-00000001] chan_sip.c: Failed to
authenticate device <sip:95678@10.0.1.35
<mailto:sip%3A95678@10.0.1.35>>;tag=as4028dabf
Is the 10.0.1.30 in the IP ACL white list for Asterisk?
Cheers,
Daniel
On 22/01/16 16:15, DING MA wrote:
Hi, all
We're trying to build a system that consists of pbx, kamailio and
asterisk in the following configuration.
pbx (sip trunk) --- kamailio --- asterisk
The kamailio and asterisk are integrated with same database. The
outgoing calls to pbx works. But there is a problem with incoming
calls from pbx.
If we make a consecutive calls from the same pbx user to the same user
registered with kamailio. The first would go through, but the second
call would be rejected by asterisk. We have insecure=invite set on the
trunk/peer, so asterisk is not supposed to auth the invite from
kamailio. But the pbx user (from in this case) is not in the database.
The asterisk log says:
[Jan 21 23:13:19] VERBOSE[20785] chan_sip.c: --- (16 headers 13 lines) ---
[Jan 21 23:13:19] VERBOSE[20785] chan_sip.c: Sending to 10.0.1.30:5061
<http://10.0.1.30:5061> (no NAT)
[Jan 21 23:13:19] VERBOSE[20785][C-00000001] chan_sip.c: Sending to
10.0.1.30:5061 <http://10.0.1.30:5061> (no NAT)
[Jan 21 23:13:19] VERBOSE[20785][C-00000001] chan_sip.c: Using INVITE
request as basis request -
4aaa2dce75c60e8546994c3501dae9e7@10.0.1.35:5061
<http://4aaa2dce75c60e8546994c3501dae9e7@10.0.1.35:5061>
[Jan 21 23:13:20] NOTICE[20785][C-00000001] acl.c: SIP Peer ACL:
Rejecting '10.0.1.30' due to a failure to pass ACL '(BASELINE)'
[Jan 21 23:13:20] NOTICE[20785][C-00000001] chan_sip.c: Failed to
authenticate device <sip:95678@10.0.1.35
<mailto:sip%3A95678@10.0.1.35>>;tag=as4028dabf
[Jan 21 23:13:20] VERBOSE[20785][C-00000001] chan_sip.c:
<--- Reliably Transmitting (no NAT) to 10.0.1.30:5061
<http://10.0.1.30:5061> --->
SIP/2.0 403 Forbidden^M
Via: SIP/2.0/TLS
10.0.1.30:5061;branch=z9hG4bK9c8e.5cd2c05f6a572312c7793abf5fe1183c.0;i=2;received=10.0.1.30^M
Via: SIP/2.0/TLS
10.0.1.35:5061;received=10.0.1.35;branch=z9hG4bK249855c1;rport=59929^M
From: <sip:95678@10.0.1.35
<mailto:sip%3A95678@10.0.1.35>>;tag=as4028dabf^M
To: <sip:16317@10.0.1.30 <mailto:sip%3A16317@10.0.1.30>>;tag=as35f47241^M
Call-ID: 4aaa2dce75c60e8546994c3501dae9e7@10.0.1.35:5061
<http://4aaa2dce75c60e8546994c3501dae9e7@10.0.1.35:5061>^M
CSeq: 102 INVITE^M
Server: Asterisk PBX 13.6.0^M
Allow: INVITE, ACK, CANCEL, OPTIONS, BYE, REFER, SUBSCRIBE, NOTIFY,
INFO, PUBLISH, MESSAGE^M
Supported: replaces, timer^M
Content-Length: 0^M
Comparing the two invites from kamailio to asterisk, it seems the only
difference is that the second invite has an "i=2" in the Via header
while the first one has "i=1". Not sure what the "i=1" is for. Would
appreciate some insights on how kamailio is adding/handling the "i=#"
in Via header.
Thanks.
Ding Ma
SPG, Motorola Solutions
_______________________________________________
SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list
sr-users(a)lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
http://twitter.com/#!/miconda -
http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
Book: SIP Routing With Kamailio -
http://www.asipto.com
http://miconda.eu