I figured out what was going on by turning on all possible debugging
in SIPp (uncommented the lines in screen.hpp and recompiled).

It turns out that IMS Bench SIPp matches up the incoming INVITE to an in
progress scenario by checking for the 'from URI' in the incoming message.
My proxy, however, rewrites the From URI so that the proxy's IP is after
the '@' sign, so no match ever occurred.  To make matters worse, if SIPp
cannot find an existing call _or_ find a From URI match, it silently
drops the message, so even with all the debugging turned on I had to
hack around for a while to find the right spot to add additional debug
messages in order to finally identify the problem.  I would suggest that
at a minimum a DBGINFO call be added as an 'else' case to the if that
calls process_incoming in CSipUdpSocket::HandleEvent.

I could have gotten around this by setting the realm to be the Proxy's
IP, I think, but that would then have gotten me into trouble with my
desire to have a single userid making multiple calls (to model our
production mix).  In that case, the incoming INVITE would have matched
more than one in-progress scenario pair.

To solve this I hacked the code to look for the Call_ID instead, since
my proxy does not change that.  That is clearly not a universal fix,
and in fact will be a problem when I test my second system, which _does_
change the Call_ID.  I hope I can get around that by sticking the
Call_ID into the name field in the From: in the scenario, but by
that point the hack is getting pretty ugly :(.

--RDM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge
Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes
Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
_______________________________________________
Sipp-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sipp-users

Reply via email to