Gmb ha scritto: > Dale Worley ha scritto: >> On Fri, 2009-03-13 at 12:11 +0100, Gmb wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> I'm using sipXecs v. 3.10.2 in HA configuration, I've some problems >>> with SNOM 300/360 phones firmware version 6.5.18, >>> they appears registered but calls to them go directly to VM. >>> I've noticed that some SNOM phone are registered with >>> "transport=tcp" and someone else without "transport=tcp" on the same >>> server, >>> master or slave, the error appears only on phone registered in >>> master server and registered with "transport=tcp". >>> >>> "5271"<sip:[email protected]> >>> <sip:[email protected]:2089;transport=tcp;line=0ok9mp3m> >>> 2151 sipxslave.sipx.domain.it >>> "5265"<sip:[email protected]> >>> <sip:[email protected]:2084;transport=tcp;line=ixyn9621> >>> 1731 sipxslave.sipx.domain.it >>> "5269"<sip:[email protected]> >>> <sip:[email protected]:2059;line=g9ircgf6> 2494 >>> sipxslave.sipx.domain.it >>> "5267"<sip:[email protected]> >>> <sip:[email protected]:2088;transport=tcp;line=ve1sz3a8> >>> 354 sipxmaster.sipx.domain.it >>> "5239"<sip:[email protected]> >>> <sip:[email protected]:2059;line=4u4y9gvi> 588 >>> sipxmaster.sipx.domain.it >>> "5273"<sip:[email protected]> >>> <sip:[email protected]:2059;line=d91l1t79> 2872 >>> sipxslave.sipx.domain.it >>> "5262"<sip:[email protected]> >>> <sip:[email protected]:2090;transport=tcp;line=kr4lp4nz> >>> 887 sipxmaster.sipx.domain.it >>> "5272"<sip:[email protected]> >>> <sip:[email protected]:2085;transport=tcp;line=ol0hm06l> >>> 2405 sipxslave.sipx.domain.it >>> "5259"<sip:[email protected]> >>> <sip:[email protected]:2055;line=jl2mkqgc> 1239 >>> sipxmaster.sipx.domain.it >>> >>> 5267, 5262 are unreachable phones. >>> >> >> What about 5272? >> >> If I recall correctly, there is a problem with Snom phones registering >> TCP addresses which are not correct, in that the phone is not listening >> for TCP on the address and port that its Contact address specifies. >> (The phone expects incoming calls only on the TCP connect which it used >> to register.) >> >> One test would be to do a packet capture, filtering on the address/port >> specified in the registration -- Since the call goes immediately to >> voicemail, it appears that when the proxy attempts to connect to the >> phone, the phone is sending an immediate rejection of the connection >> (RST packet). This should be apparent on the packet trace. >> >> None of this solves your problem, of course. Can you determine the >> difference in configuration between the phones that register with >> "transport=tcp" and those that do not? >> >> Dale >> >> >> >> > Hi Dale, > I've done new tests on my system, it seems that this problem affect > both master and slave server but > not at the same time and only with SNOM phones registered with > transport=tcp parameter. In previous example > phones registered with transport=tcp parameter on sipxmaster server > are unreacheble, other phones registered > on sipxslave with transport=tcp parameter on sipxslave work perfectly > (also 5272). > After timeout and a new registration the situation has changed, now > the unreacheble phones are on sipxslave. > A packet capture on registration port shows that server affected from > this problem doesn't send any packet to phone, on the > contrary capture on reacheble phone shows a normal message exchange. > It seems that SNOM phones are listening > on right port but sipx doesn't send messages to phones... > >
_______________________________________________ sipx-users mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-users
