On Sun, 2009-06-07 at 13:47 -0400, Matt Keys wrote: > > Regarding my original email here's some more detail. I was reading the > information about the from header here: > http://sipx-wiki.calivia.com/index.php/SipX_Phone_Registration_Troubleshooting > .. it appears to be the same. > > REGISTER sip:pbx.pfnnet.net:5080 SIP/2.0 > Via: SIP/2.0/UDP > 208.71.234.170:5060;branch=z9hG4bK348e4303;rport=5060;received=208.71.234.170 > From: <sip:[email protected]>;tag=as49e75d33 > To: <sip:[email protected]> > Call-ID: [email protected] > CSeq: 127 REGISTER > User-Agent: Asterisk PBX > Max-Forwards: 70 > Expires: 120 > Contact: <sip:[email protected]> > Event: registration > Content-Length: 0 > > SIP/2.0 405 Method not allowed > Via: SIP/2.0/UDP > 208.71.234.170:5060;branch=z9hG4bK348e4303;rport=5060;received=208.71.234.170 > From: <sip:[email protected]>;tag=as49e75d33 > To: <sip:[email protected]> > Call-ID: [email protected] > CSeq: 127 REGISTER > Server: sipXecs/4.0.1 sipXecs/sipxbridge (Linux) > Content-Length: 0
You're sending a REGISTER inward through sipXbridge, which should be OK in principle. Though the Asterisk is trying to register itself as "sip:[email protected]" -- is that a defined extension on your sipXecs system? Given that the response says "Server: sipXecs/4.0.1 sipXecs/sipxbridge", it appears that sipXbridge is rejecting the request. I'm not sure why that would be, but I suspect that if the bridge allowed the request, the REGISTER would still fail due to the alleged extension number. Dale _______________________________________________ sipx-users mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-users
