[Serusers] Ignored registrations?

Jiri Kuthan jiri at iptel.org
Wed Jul 2 19:40:21 CEST 2003

quick guess -- configure your SIP telephones to use address of your SIP server
as opposed to SIP000BBEF2DF4C.


At 06:23 PM 7/2/2003, Jamin W. Collins wrote:
>I'm having a small problem with a phone registration at a customer's
>site.  The majority of the phones register with no problem.  The ones
>that register correctly are Snom 200s, while the one I'm having problems
>with is a Cisco.  The registration request I see in my ngrep log from
>the Cisco is: 
>   REGISTER sip:SIP000BBEF2DF4C SIP/2.0..Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
>  From: sip:Line1 at SIP000BBEF2DF4C..To:
>   sip:Line1 at SIP000BBEF2DF4C..Call-ID:
>   000bbef2-df4c000c-223725a3-671cea85 at 101
>   REGISTER..Contact: <sip:Line1 at>..Expires:
>   3600..Content-Length: 0....
>While a Snom's request looks like this:
>   REGISTER sip: SIP/2.0..Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
>   70..From: "IC36" <sip:IC36 at>;tag=26kqteejq4..To: "IC36"
>   <sip:IC36 at>..Call-ID:
>   3ef763ebf18c-ga88nc7dymyf at
>   snom200-1.15r..CSeq: 1581 REGISTER..Route:
>   <sip:>..Contact:
>   <sip:IC36 at;line=1>..Expires: 600..Content-Length:
>   0....
>There's never a response of any kind from the SER proxy to the Cisco's
>request.  I noticed that the Cisco doesn't enlcose the From or To
>addresses in <>'s, while the Snom and other SIP devices at the location
>do, but I'm not sure that's the problem.
>Jamin W. Collins
>This is the typical unix way of doing things: you string together lots
>of very specific tools to accomplish larger tasks. -- Vineet Kumar
>Serusers mailing list
>serusers at lists.iptel.org

Jiri Kuthan            http://iptel.org/~jiri/ 

More information about the sr-users mailing list