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@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
-- Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/