Duane, Thank you so much for your response! I temporarily commented out
"server_header="example.test.com", and we have two way communication happening now. Not quite sure why sine the "server_header" is not "opensips.example.com", and is actually a FQDN (i.e, known to public DNSs). Will look into it further and keep the list posted, and enrich google in the process. N. On 1/9/13, Duane Larson <[email protected]> wrote: > Sorry. After looking at this more I see that this is a siptrace from the > phone itself so the 200 OK is obviously making it to the phone. So yeah > your "opensips.example.com." might be whats messing it up. > > Look at this example of a 200 OK > http://www.rfc-ref.org/RFC-TEXTS/3261/chapter24.html > > What is adding that line? It needs to go away I think. > > > > On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Nick Khamis <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hahah, trying so hard to make everyone (in this case internal/external >> UAs) Happy! The external (i.e., outside of the network) phones are all >> working nicely. It's just the phones within the network that are >> complaining. Looking at the NAT box, I see that they have 5060 port >> forwarded to the OpenSIPS box. >> Pinging the phone from the proxy is ok. >> >> Any thoughts? >> >> Nick. >> >> >> >> On 1/9/13, Duane Larson <[email protected]> wrote: >> > So you say you "closed gaping holes". Are you saying that the local >> > polycom phone are behind a firewall? If they are behind the firewall >> then >> > you need to figure out why the 200 OK is not making it to the polycom >> > phones. It could be because Polycom doesn't support rport (just a shot >> in >> > the dark from the info you have provided). >> > >> > >> > On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 4:05 PM, Nick Khamis <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> >> Hello Everyone, >> >> >> >> After scrambling to close up some gaping holes and getting RTP >> >> relaying some media, >> >> all of which is playing so nicely together. I have been accused of >> >> breaking the "REGISTER" >> >> functionality on the local Polycom phones. The remote ones all seem to >> >> be ok but for some reason, I have the following SIP trace from the >> >> local phones: >> >> >> >> I suspect it's the "opensips.example.com." (which the actual domain >> >> name has been replaced for security reasons) at the bottom of the >> >> response causing the problem? >> >> >> >> U 1999/12/18 17:42:11.890804 192.168.2.11:5060 -> 192.168.2.5:5060 >> >> REGISTER sip:192.168.2.5:5060 SIP/2.0. >> >> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.2.11:5060;branch=z9hG4bK5dfc96b3ADE4AD6E. >> >> From: "1001" <sip:[email protected]>;tag=8D956A9-11D1CBB2. >> >> To: <sip:[email protected]>. >> >> CSeq: 1 REGISTER. >> >> Call-ID: [email protected]. >> >> Contact: <sip:[email protected]:5060>;methods="INVITE, ACK, BYE, >> >> CANCEL, OPTIONS, INFO, MESSAGE, SUBSCRIBE, NOTIFY, PRACK, UPDATE, >> >> REFER". >> >> User-Agent: PolycomSoundPointIP-SPIP_301-UA/3.1.8.0070. >> >> Accept-Language: en. >> >> Max-Forwards: 70. >> >> Expires: 3600. >> >> Content-Length: 0. >> >> . >> >> >> >> >> >> U 1999/12/18 17:42:11.891532 192.168.2.5:5060 -> 192.168.2.11:5060 >> >> SIP/2.0 200 OK. >> >> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP >> >> 192.168.2.11:5060 >> >> ;received=192.168.2.11;rport=5060;branch=z9hG4bK5dfc96b3ADE4AD6E. >> >> From: "1001" <sip:[email protected]>;tag=8D956A9-11D1CBB2. >> >> To: <sip:[email protected]>;tag=b3499e451a8d3922338ff1f455481e64.34b3. >> >> CSeq: 1 REGISTER. >> >> Call-ID: [email protected]. >> >> Contact: <sip:[email protected]:5060>;expires=3600. >> >> opensips.example.com. >> >> Content-Length: 0. >> >> Warning: 392 192.168.2.5:5060 "Noisy feedback tells: pid=2910 >> >> req_src_ip=192.168.2.11 req_src_port=5060 in_uri=sip:192.168.2.5:5060 >> >> out_uri=sip:192.168.2.5:5060 via_cnt==1". >> >> . >> >> >> >> >> >> U 1999/12/18 17:42:12.860355 192.168.2.11:5060 -> 192.168.2.5:5060 >> >> REGISTER sip:192.168.2.5:5060 SIP/2.0. >> >> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.2.11:5060;branch=z9hG4bK52241620779FEF4F. >> >> From: "1001" <sip:[email protected]>;tag=DC560FE-72CEA503. >> >> To: <sip:[email protected]>. >> >> CSeq: 1 REGISTER. >> >> Call-ID: [email protected]. >> >> Contact: <sip:[email protected]:5060>;methods="INVITE, ACK, BYE, >> >> CANCEL, OPTIONS, INFO, MESSAGE, SUBSCRIBE, NOTIFY, PRACK, UPDATE, >> >> REFER". >> >> User-Agent: PolycomSoundPointIP-SPIP_301-UA/3.1.8.0070. >> >> Accept-Language: en. >> >> Max-Forwards: 70. >> >> Expires: 3600. >> >> Content-Length: 0. >> >> . >> >> >> >> >> >> U 1999/12/18 17:42:12.860750 192.168.2.5:5060 -> 192.168.2.11:5060 >> >> SIP/2.0 200 OK. >> >> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP >> >> 192.168.2.11:5060 >> >> ;received=192.168.2.11;rport=5060;branch=z9hG4bK52241620779FEF4F. >> >> From: "1001" <sip:[email protected]>;tag=DC560FE-72CEA503. >> >> To: <sip:[email protected]>;tag=b3499e451a8d3922338ff1f455481e64.2efb. >> >> CSeq: 1 REGISTER. >> >> Call-ID: [email protected]. >> >> Contact: <sip:[email protected]:5060>;expires=3600. >> >> opensips.example.com. >> >> Content-Length: 0. >> >> Warning: 392 192.168.2.5:5060 "Noisy feedback tells: pid=2912 >> >> req_src_ip=192.168.2.11 req_src_port=5060 in_uri=sip:192.168.2.5:5060 >> >> out_uri=sip:192.168.2.5:5060 via_cnt==1". >> >> >> >> As you can see the expire is set to 3600 on the UA, and the ok is >> >> being sent back however, Poly does not seem to be receiving the 200? >> >> >> >> Thanks in Advance, >> >> >> >> Nick. >> >> . >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> Users mailing list >> >> [email protected] >> >> http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > -- >> > *--*--*--*--*--* >> > Duane >> > *--*--*--*--*--* >> > -- >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Users mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users >> > > > > -- > -- > *--*--*--*--*--* > Duane > *--*--*--*--*--* > -- > _______________________________________________ Users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
