Hi Somphol,
1) Why I'm not sure WHY CUCM would send the INVITE with <caller_ext>@CUBE, the key for putting a call on hold and resuming is in the SDP attached to that INVITE's, not the address URL. As long as the outcome is as desired, the actual address URL used after the INVITE may not matter. Although I suspect this does have a reasonable explanation :) 2) CUBE, by default is designed to maximize security, hiding everything and anything behind it. To pass PAI use: sip asserted-id pai Regards, Zoltan Kelemen Global Communications and Information Security Implementation Engineering Emerson From: cisco-voip [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Somphol Boonjing Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2014 7:23 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [cisco-voip] CUBE behavior Hi, We are running CUCM 8.6.2 and CUBE 15.2(2)T1. I collect SIP trace from an incoming call made between from ITSP to one of our number. There are two things from SIP trace collected from CUBE that I don't quite understand. If anyone has seen similar things and able to explain what happens, that would be great. [1] After the call is put on hold and a Resume button is pressed. CUCM seems to send an INVITE to CUBE, but addressing it to our local number. (ext 1111 registered to our CUCM at 2.2.2.2, but the CUCM send out INVITE to 1111@CUBE_IP) The trace of the anomaly one. Feb 3 13:11:31.062: //-1/xxxxxxxxxxxx/SIP/Msg/ccsipDisplayMsg: Received: INVITE sip:[email protected]:5060;transport=tcp SIP/2.0 Via: SIP/2.0/TCP 2.2.2.2:5060;branch=z9hG4bK224ce234d6995 From: <sip:[email protected]<mailto:sip%[email protected]>>;tag=1518352~5715354d-5e10-479a-bb99-fd13399246ab-42474051 To: "Foo Foo" <sip:[email protected]<mailto:sip%[email protected]>>;tag=BCC14C68-1155 All other Re-INVITEs in the trace contain the correct target URI. Feb 3 13:11:28.086: //-1/xxxxxxxxxxxx/SIP/Msg/ccsipDisplayMsg: Received: INVITE sip:[email protected]:5060;transport=tcp SIP/2.0 Via: SIP/2.0/TCP 2.2.2.2:5060;branch=z9hG4bK224ca3fe1b3aa From: <sip:[email protected]<mailto:sip%[email protected]>>;tag=1518352~5715354d-5e10-479a-bb99-fd13399246ab-42474051 To: "Foo Foo" <sip:[email protected]<mailto:sip%[email protected]>>;tag=BCC14C68-1155 Is this a known bug or by design? [2] For Re-INVITE, CUBE seems to filter both "Remote-Party-ID" & "P-Asserted-Identify" before sending it out to our ITSP. Is this expected? CUBE seems to be very young and many aspect of its operation is fairly undocumented so I don't know whether this is a bug or by-design. Here is the relevant configuration on CUBE #show run | b voice service voip voice service voip ip address trusted list .... ... address-hiding mode border-element allow-connections sip to sip fax protocol t38 version 0 ls-redundancy 0 hs-redundancy 0 fallback none sip bind control source-interface GigabitEthernet0/0 bind media source-interface GigabitEthernet0/0 session transport tcp rel1xx disable header-passing error-passthru midcall-signaling passthru pass-thru content sdp ... ... A full call trace in question is attached. Regards, --Somphol.
_______________________________________________ cisco-voip mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
