Joegen

 

Nice work.  After this patch is applied, is port 5080 still involved in any
way?  I thought all signaling would then be transacted over port 5060 both
to internal phones, remote workers and ITSPs.  Probably I am missing
something, because if this was the case then why are you interested in the
test case below?

--martin

 

 

From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Joegen Baclor
Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 6:25 PM
To: sipXecs developer discussions
Subject: Re: [sipx-dev] 5060/5080 trunking issues almost solved pending
actualtests

 

Hi Everyone,

I had a chance to test this patch using an ITSP.   I used voip.ms to test.
The call worked with bidirectional audio and I was satisfied.  The logs
however shows that voip.ms did not send the call to port 5060 but via the
registration port 5080.  Can you point me to an ITSP that insists on sending
to 5060?  Or better yet, if you have an account with an ITSP that behaves
this way, would you be able to throw my test server an inbound call via
sip-trunk reg?   Any help would be appreciated.  Thanks.

Joegen   

On Monday, 20 September, 2010 05:49 PM, Tony Graziano wrote: 

Looking at the sipxbridge log, I see the by from 201, then the errors start.
I think the question is where the bye should be sent and ack'd. Without
seeing the sipxproxy.log its kind of hard to say. The error implies a
listening error, but that is a bit of a long message and can simply be a
result of "not knowing" what to do... the twinkle log looks plain, it shows
sending the bye to bridge on port 5080. Is sipxbridge still listening
locally on port 5080 in this environment?I just don;t know how to read it
because the sipxbridge log shows the BYE on port 5060 and the twinkle log
shows 5080. 

 

nBYE sip:[email protected] <mailto:sip%[email protected]> ;x-sipX-nonat
SIP/2.0\r\nVia: SIP/2.0/UDP 112.201.137.176:5080;

 

Can you explain how the call flow for a bye should work (which service/port)
and where it should be sent (directly to sipxbridge is my guess from the
client and vice versa)?

On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 2:19 AM, Joegen Baclor <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Folks,

For those of you who are following the development on this thread, I have
attached a new set of twinkle log that demonstrates a complete call that
passes through 5060 coming from a dummy ITSP.  The previous log I have sent
contained a glitch that is now corrected.  I needed to modify contact
creation in sipXbridge a bit so that it sends the internal IP address when
talking to the proxy.   This glitch is now corrected.

However, I am now facing a new issue.  When the BYE is coming from the
called extension, sipXproxy sends a 407 for the BYE and sipXbridge suddenly
barfs an exception

"2010-09-20T05:48:59.328000Z":1188:sipxbridge:ERR:c2.ossapp.com:Thread-88:00
000000:SipListenerImpl:"Unexpected error processing response >>>> SIP/2.0
407 Proxy Authentication Required\r\nFrom:
<sip:[email protected]>;tag=784036913\r\nTo: \"Joegen Baclor\"
<sip:[email protected]>;tag=bjome\r\nCall-ID:
kteensdeyxos...@bravia-c4\r\ncseq: 1 BYE\r\nVia: SIP/2.0/UDP
112.201.137.176:5080;branch=z9hG4bK5fe25839220b0a96ff883192d4d6e60a373835;re
ceived=192.168.1.11;rport=5080\r\nProxy-Authenticate: Digest
realm=\"c2.ossapp.com\",nonce=\"e669226f7847e446773d4cceeddd161a4c96f5cb\",q
op=\"auth\"\r\nServer: sipXecs/4.3.0 sipXecs/sipXproxy (Linux)\r\nDate: Mon,
20 Sep 2010 05:48:59 GMT\r\nContent-Length: 0\r\n\r\n"
javax.sip.SipException: Unexpected exception 

Newbie Questions:
1.  Is the proxy suppose to authenticate mid-dialog requests from the
bridge?  Is this how it behaves currently?
2.  What could be causing the bridge to barf?  Isn't it suppose to just
relay the response to the callee since it would know how to construct the
authentication?  Or is this something I have introduced by messing around
with contact?

Joegen 




On Thursday, 16 September, 2010 11:51 PM, Tony Graziano wrote: 

I feel a little left out because they won't approve my openscs registration
request.

On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 11:35 AM, Matt White <[email protected]>
wrote:

Sweet!....thats what I was hoping to hear.

I didn't think Avaya has released any code for it's new openscs project as
the website still has nothing new from June.  But was wondering if I missed
something if Avaya had actually released openscs code.

I do think its funny the openscs webpage notes that "As of July Avaya no
longer participates in SIPFoundry. SIPFoundry has forked the code base and
is being maintained by a new startup company."

Rather than Avaya being the one that forked it into a new openscs project
;-)

-M

>>> Joegen Baclor 09/16/10 10:00 AM >>> 


Hi Matt,

I've heard that Avaya is trying to solve this as well.  But this one is
completely community/ezuce code.

Joegen

On Thursday, 16 September, 2010 09:04 PM, Matt White wrote: 

Great news.  This will go a long way towards increased interop.

Out of curiosity, is any of this based on the work that avaya was doing
before the fork?  Or is this 100% community/ezuce code?

-M

>>> Joegen Baclor  <mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]> 09/16/10
4:37 AM >>>
Hi Folks,

I just thought you'd be interested in knowing that I have already 
successfully sent a call to port 5060 and forwarded to the bridge by 
redirection. See attached log from twinkle. Unfortutely, I am behind 
a firewall controlled by the ITSP so this is not yet tested in an actual 
environment. If you take a look at the log I have attached, the 200 OK 
is now coming from sipXbridge event if the call passed through the main 
sipXproxy listener. The ACK in this case will be misrouted because 
sipXbridge is sending the external IP as its contact. This however 
should not be an issue if the actual test call came from an entity 
outside my firewall. Hopefully we will have some more good news in the 
days to come.

Joegen

 
_______________________________________________
sipx-dev mailing list
[email protected]
List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev/

 


_______________________________________________
sipx-dev mailing list
[email protected]
List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev/




-- 
======================
Tony Graziano, Manager
Telephone: 434.984.8430
sip: [email protected]
Fax: 434.984.8431

Email: [email protected]

LAN/Telephony/Security and Control Systems Helpdesk:
Telephone: 434.984.8426
sip: [email protected]
Fax: 434.984.8427

Helpdesk Contract Customers:
http://www.myitdepartment.net/gethelp/

Why do mathematicians always confuse Halloween and Christmas?
Because 31 Oct = 25 Dec.

 
_______________________________________________
sipx-dev mailing list
[email protected]
List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev/

 




-- 
======================
Tony Graziano, Manager
Telephone: 434.984.8430
sip: [email protected]
Fax: 434.984.8431

Email: [email protected]

LAN/Telephony/Security and Control Systems Helpdesk:
Telephone: 434.984.8426
sip: [email protected]
Fax: 434.984.8427

Helpdesk Contract Customers:
http://www.myitdepartment.net/gethelp/

Why do mathematicians always confuse Halloween and Christmas?
Because 31 Oct = 25 Dec.

 

_______________________________________________
sipx-dev mailing list
[email protected]
List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev/

Reply via email to