OK. The "registration status" page at the ITSP will show you what port you are registered on. I think that would be a good enhancement for sipxconfig (to show the registration port), but editing the gateway itsp account to reflect "ITSP Registrar Port" and manually set it to 5060 should show you after re-initialization at the voip.ms portal that the registration is at port 5060, at which point your test can proceed.
Logically, an ITSP that requires registration will send the calls to the same port you are registered on. On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 6:25 PM, Joegen Baclor <[email protected]> wrote: > 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] <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-88:00000000: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;received=192.168.1.11;rport=5080\r\nProxy-Authenticate: >> Digest >> realm=\"c2.ossapp.com\",nonce=\"e669226f7847e446773d4cceeddd161a4c96f5cb\",qop=\"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 <[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 [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 [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/
