5 Nov
2003
5 Nov
'03
7:23 p.m.
The part which strikes me is the port number in contact.
The 200 returns lot of such contacts with ascending port
number. A possible explanation is that the ATA mistakenly
registers all over again contacts which are differnt
each timer (different port number). They are handled
as distinct contact by SER and that's why so many appear
in 200.
Maybe it happens because ATA does not think it received
the reply. It is a bad practice that it solicits replies
at a different port number (1388) than from which it sends
(1387).
Try sending replies to origination port by calling force_rport
from your script. Or even better, make your ATA receive
at port number from where it sends. (I don't know how, though.)
-jiri
At 01:00 AM 11/6/2003, Mike wrote:
After playing around with the new firmware (and new SER
cvs snapshot
0.8.12dev-22-tcp_aliases) I'm seeing some very strange behavior from SER
(ngrep trace follows):
U 1.1.19.48:1387 -> 1.1.16.55:5060
REGISTER sip:sip.test.net SIP/2.0..Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 1.1.19.48:1388..From:
<sip:6526@sip.test.net;user=phone>;tag=50886574..T
o: <sip:6526@sip.test.net;user=phone>..Call-ID: 4136319346@10.118.145.13..CSeq:
160 REGISTER..Contact: <sip:6526@1.1.19.48:
1388;user=phone;transport=udp>;expires=1800..User-Agent: Cisco ATA 186 v2.16.2
ata18x (030909a)..Content-Length: 0....
#
U 1.1.16.55:5060 -> 1.1.19.48:1388 25017@0:1480
...l....SIP/2.0 200 OK..Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 1.1.19.48:1388..From:
<sip:6526@sip.test.net;user=phone>;tag=50886574..To: <sip:65
26@sip.test.net;user=phone>;tag=0596aef19d8edd571cbf9827f60616bb.97c5..Call-ID:
4136319346@10.118.145.13..CSeq: 160 REGISTER..Co
ntact:
<sip:6526@1.1.19.48:1376;user=phone;transport=udp>;q=0.00;expires=30..Contact:
<sip:6526@1.1.19.48:1377;user=p
hone;transport=udp>;q=0.00;expires=56..Contact:
<sip:6526@1.1.19.48:1378;user=phone;transport=udp>;q=0.00;expires=517..Con
tact:
<sip:6526@1.1.19.48:1379;user=phone;transport=udp>;q=0.00;expires=527..Contact:
<sip:6526@1.1.19.48:1380;user=p
hone;transport=udp>;q=0.00;expires=652..Contact:
<sip:6526@1.1.19.48:1381;user=phone;transport=udp>;q=0.00;expires=780..Co
ntact:
<sip:6526@1.1.19.48:1382;user=phone;transport=udp>;q=0.00;expires=911..Contact:
<sip:6526@1.1.19.48:1383;user=
phone;transport=udp>;q=0.00;expires=1040..Contact:
<sip:6526@1.1.19.48:1385;user=phone;transport=udp>;q=0.00;expires=1303.
.Contact:
<sip:6526@1.1.19.48:1386;user=phone;transport=udp>;q=0.00;expires=1532..Contact:
<sip:6526@1.1.19.48:1387;u
ser=phone;transport=udp>;q=0.00;expires=1576..Contact:
<sip:6526@1.1.19.48:1388;user=phone;transport=udp>;q=0.00;expires=1
800..Server: Sip EXpress router (0.8.12dev-22-tcp_aliases (i386/linux))..Content-Length:
0..Warning: 392 sip.test.net:5060 "Nois
y feedback tells: pid=11260 req_src_ip=1.1.19.48 req_src_port=1387 in_uri=sip
This is repeated over and over and over again. This seems very bizzare to
me. ATAs with earlier firmware don't trigger this behavior. The only
thing that I can see different in the register request is the addition of
the tag in the From: line:
From: <sip:6526@sip.test.net;user=phone>;tag=50886574
whereas the old ATA registers with:
From: <sip:6526@sip.test.net;user=phone>
Any clues?? Thanks!!
- Mike
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
--
Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/