Hi,
As I noticed the message, the problem lies in the message from the IP
phone A. If you could see the INVITE message from IP phone A, it has "ROUTE"
header, but in case of INVITE message from Cisco, there is no "ROUTE"
header. Both the SIP phones will forward the request to the pre-configured
route and in first case, Pulver again forwards the request to the top route
which is of its own and hence the problem.
Messages that you sent,
>From IP phone A to Pulver,
INVITE sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] SIP/2.0
To: <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: Staka <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;tag=200340ghj
Call-ID: 210950h9!
CSeq: 3 INVITE
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 172.25.21.217:5060;branch=z9hG4bK283970mxu;rport
Allow: ACK,BYE,CANCEL,INVITE,INFO,NOTIFY,OPTIONS,PRACK,REFER,UPDATE
Contact: sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Supported: 100rel,replaces,precondition
Accept: application/sdp,application/cpim-pidf+xml
Expires: 3600
User-Agent: Conexant-User-Agent
Route: <sip:fwd.pulver.com:5060;lr>
Accept-Language: en
Content-Type: application/sdp
Content-Length: 196
Content-Language: en
Content-Disposition: session
Max-Forwards: 70
>From Cisco to Pulver,
INVITE sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 172.25.21.209:5060;branch=z9hG4bK143877ae
From: "731348"
<sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;tag=001360b51e8c003d3165ba76-086d194f
To: <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Call-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 05:26:29 GMT
CSeq: 102 INVITE
User-Agent: CSCO/7
Contact: <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:5060>
Proxy-Authorization: Digest
username="731348",realm="fwd.pulver.com",uri="sip:69.90.155.70",response="51
29a2142571b85e96477225216b2f9b",nonce="43e04c627ed4dbfb9be2911b9d4756bce2d23
fb4",algorithm=md5
Expires: 180
Content-Type: application/sdp
Content-Length: 248
Hope this clarifies your doubt.
Regards,
Manju
-----Original Message-----
From: Anshuman Rawat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 3:30 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Sip-implementors] Record-Route with same field values
Hi,
This behavior is only noticed in 1 direction i.e. for calls from IP phone A
to Cisco 7960.
It never happens for calls from Cisco phone to IP phone A. I have the
INVITEs pasted here. In the 2nd INVITE, we can see that there are 2 distinct
VIA headers and only 1 Record-Route value.
Thanks for responding,
Anshuman
- (INVITE from Cisco to Pulver)
INVITE sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 172.25.21.209:5060;branch=z9hG4bK143877ae
From: "731348"
<sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;tag=001360b51e8c003d3165ba76-086d194f
To: <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Call-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 05:26:29 GMT
CSeq: 102 INVITE
User-Agent: CSCO/7
Contact: <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:5060>
Proxy-Authorization: Digest
username="731348",realm="fwd.pulver.com",uri="sip:69.90.155.70",response="51
29a2142571b85e96477225216b2f9b",nonce="43e04c627ed4dbfb9be2911b9d4756bce2d23
fb4",algorithm=md5
Expires: 180
Content-Type: application/sdp
Content-Length: 248
v=0
o=Cisco-SIPUA 21088 7404 IN IP4 172.25.21.209
s=SIP Call
c=IN IP4 172.25.21.209
t=0 0
m=audio 24168 RTP/AVP 18 0 8 101
a=rtpmap:18 G729/8000
a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000
a=rtpmap:8 PCMA/8000
a=rtpmap:101 telephone-event/8000
a=fmtp:101 0-15
- (INVITE from Pulver to IP phone A)
INVITE sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:5060 SIP/2.0
Max-Forwards: 10
Record-Route:
<sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED];ftag=001360b51e8c003d3165ba76-086d194f;lr=on>
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 69.90.155.70;branch=z9hG4bKc2ec.c87c57a.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 172.25.21.209:5060;branch=z9hG4bK143877ae
From: "731348"
<sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;tag=001360b51e8c003d3165ba76-086d194f
4To: <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Call-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 05:26:29 GMT
CSeq: 102 INVITE
User-Agent: CSCO/7
Contact: <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:5060>
Proxy-Authorization: Digest
username="731348",realm="fwd.pulver.com",uri="sip:69.90.155.70",response="51
29a2142571b85e96477225216b2f9b",nonce="43e04c627ed4dbfb9be2911b9d4756bce2d23
fb4",algorithm=md5
Expires: 180
Content-Type: application/sdp
Content-Length: 248
v=0
o=Cisco-SIPUA 21088 7404 IN IP4 172.25.21.209
s=SIP Call
c=IN IP4 172.25.21.209
t=0 0
m=audio 24168 RTP/AVP 18 0 8 101
a=rtpmap:18 G729/8000
a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000
a=rtpmap:8 PCMA/8000
a=rtpmap:101 telephone-event/8000
a=fmtp:101 0-15
_____
From: Manjunath Warad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 2:35 PM
To: Anshuman Rawat; [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Sip-implementors] Record-Route with same field values
Hi,
After analysing the message, I guess the message is spiralled in the
proxy. Since the 2 branch are different inserted by proxy, I came to such
conclusion.
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 69.90.155.70;branch=z9hG4bK0ceb.85584e86.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 69.90.155.70;branch=z9hG4bK0ceb.75584e86.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 172.25.21.217:5060;branch=z9hG4bK283970mxu;rport=30719
Request might have traversed in this way,
IP Phone A Proxy(fwd.pulver.com) Cisco7960
This proxy adds two
RR and two Via.
But I dont know for what reason the request spiralled in the proxy.
Regards,
Manju
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Anshuman Rawat
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 11:16 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [Sip-implementors] Record-Route with same field values
Hi,
I have 2 IP phones (1 Cisco 7960 & another IP phone, say IP phone A)
registered with fwd.pulver.com. When calling Cisco from IP phone A, I
noticed that the INVITE which Cisco received that 2 equal Record-Route
values. It probably is 'cause of the fact that the INVITE contained 2 VIA
field values with same IP address but different branch parameters (see
bolded text in 2nd INVITE below).
I can't understand why the proxy (fwd.pulver.com) inserted 2 VIA header
fields. Also, would there be any impact on routing if Record-Route has 2
identical field values? Any explanation for this behavior?
Thanks in advance,
Anshuman
PS:
1. First INVITE message below is from IP phone A to proxy (fwd.pulver.com).
Second INVITE is from proxy to Cisco.
2. When calling from Cisco to IP phone A, the proxy inserts only one VIA
header, as I was expecting (INVITE message not pasted here).
INVITE sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] SIP/2.0
To: <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: Staka <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;tag=200340ghj
Call-ID: 210950h9!
CSeq: 3 INVITE
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 172.25.21.217:5060;branch=z9hG4bK283970mxu;rport
Allow: ACK,BYE,CANCEL,INVITE,INFO,NOTIFY,OPTIONS,PRACK,REFER,UPDATE
Contact: sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Supported: 100rel,replaces,precondition
Accept: application/sdp,application/cpim-pidf+xml
Expires: 3600
User-Agent: Conexant-User-Agent
Route: <sip:fwd.pulver.com:5060;lr>
Accept-Language: en
Content-Type: application/sdp
Content-Length: 196
Content-Language: en
Content-Disposition: session
Max-Forwards: 70
v=0
o=731346 550 550 IN IP4 172.25.21.217
s=SIP Phone
c=IN IP4 172.25.21.217
t=0 0
m=audio 5000 RTP/AVP 0 8 18
a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000
a=rtpmap:8 PCMA/8000
a=rtpmap:18 G729/8000
a=sendrecv
INVITE sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:5060 SIP/2.0
Record-Route: <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED];ftag=200340ghj;lr=on>
Record-Route: <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED];ftag=200340ghj;lr=on>
To: <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: Staka <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;tag=200340ghj
Call-ID: 210950h9!
CSeq: 3 INVITE
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 69.90.155.70;branch=z9hG4bK0ceb.85584e86.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 69.90.155.70;branch=z9hG4bK0ceb.75584e86.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 172.25.21.217:5060;branch=z9hG4bK283970mxu;rport=30719
Allow: ACK,BYE,CANCEL,INVITE,INFO,NOTIFY,OPTIONS,PRACK,REFER,UPDATE
Contact: sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:5060
Supported: 100rel,replaces,precondition
Accept: application/sdp,application/cpim-pidf+xml
Expires: 3600
User-Agent: Conexant-User-Agent
Accept-Language: en
Content-Type: application/sdp
Content-Length: 196
Content-Language: en
Content-Disposition: session
Max-Forwards: 68
v=0
o=731346 550 550 IN IP4 172.25.21.217
s=SIP Phone
c=IN IP4 172.25.21.217
t=0 0
m=audio 5000 RTP/AVP 0 8 18
a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000
a=rtpmap:8 PCMA/8000
a=rtpmap:18 G729/8000
a=sendrecv
Regards,
Anshuman S. Rawat
********************** Legal Disclaimer **************************** "This
email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of
the intended recipient. Any unauthorized review, use or distribution by
others is strictly prohibited. If you have received the message in error,
please advise the sender by reply email and delete the message. Thank you."
**********************************************************************
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
[email protected]
<https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors>
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
