[Serusers] Strange ATA-186 register behavior

[Jiri Kuthan]

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 at sip.test.net;user=phone>;tag=50886574..T
>  o: <sip:6526 at sip.test.net;user=phone>..Call-ID: 4136319346 at 10.118.145.13..CSeq: 160 REGISTER..Contact: <sip:6526 at 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 at 0:1480
>  ...l....SIP/2.0 200 OK..Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 1.1.19.48:1388..From: <sip:6526 at sip.test.net;user=phone>;tag=50886574..To: <sip:65
>  26 at sip.test.net;user=phone>;tag=0596aef19d8edd571cbf9827f60616bb.97c5..Call-ID: 4136319346 at 10.118.145.13..CSeq: 160 REGISTER..Co
>  ntact: <sip:6526 at 1.1.19.48:1376;user=phone;transport=udp>;q=0.00;expires=30..Contact: <sip:6526 at 1.1.19.48:1377;user=p
>  hone;transport=udp>;q=0.00;expires=56..Contact: <sip:6526 at 1.1.19.48:1378;user=phone;transport=udp>;q=0.00;expires=517..Con
>  tact: <sip:6526 at 1.1.19.48:1379;user=phone;transport=udp>;q=0.00;expires=527..Contact: <sip:6526 at 1.1.19.48:1380;user=p
>  hone;transport=udp>;q=0.00;expires=652..Contact: <sip:6526 at 1.1.19.48:1381;user=phone;transport=udp>;q=0.00;expires=780..Co
>  ntact: <sip:6526 at 1.1.19.48:1382;user=phone;transport=udp>;q=0.00;expires=911..Contact: <sip:6526 at 1.1.19.48:1383;user=
>  phone;transport=udp>;q=0.00;expires=1040..Contact: <sip:6526 at 1.1.19.48:1385;user=phone;transport=udp>;q=0.00;expires=1303.
>  .Contact: <sip:6526 at 1.1.19.48:1386;user=phone;transport=udp>;q=0.00;expires=1532..Contact: <sip:6526 at 1.1.19.48:1387;u
>  ser=phone;transport=udp>;q=0.00;expires=1576..Contact: <sip:6526 at 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 at sip.test.net;user=phone>;tag=50886574
>
>whereas the old ATA registers with:
>
>From: <sip:6526 at sip.test.net;user=phone>
>
>Any clues??  Thanks!!
>
>- Mike
>
>_______________________________________________
>Serusers mailing list
>serusers at lists.iptel.org
>http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers

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