andrewgroup Posted January 16, 2008 Report Share Posted January 16, 2008 A new ITSP we are working with says that one of two IP's negotiate the inbound invite and we are to be accepting the call on another IP.. We have the trunk set to accept redirects.. Running 2.1.5.. Cisco is the culprit - ignore this post for now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kristan Posted January 16, 2008 Report Share Posted January 16, 2008 Can you post the full invite? In the logging options for the domain, set it to log "other sip" messages. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrewgroup Posted January 16, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 16, 2008 Can you post the full invite? In the logging options for the domain, set it to log "other sip" messages. No more on this topic "case closed until Cisco Fixes Bug. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrewgroup Posted January 16, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 16, 2008 Can you post the full invite? In the logging options for the domain, set it to log "other sip" messages. Diagnosis is that Cisco BTS10200 has a know bug discovered in Sept 07, that a REFER statement causes. The ITS is pressing Cisco for a bug fix... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrewgroup Posted January 16, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 16, 2008 Can you post the full invite? No more on this topic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vodia PBX Posted January 16, 2008 Report Share Posted January 16, 2008 SIP/2.0 400 Bad RequestVia: SIP/2.0/UDP 208.64.32.55:5060;branch=z9hG4bK-3d56a88e43d01aece3a4ff46ab9c56d1;rport From: "TEST PHONE"<sip:301@localhost>;tag=39394 To: <sip:7302500@sip.allthingsit.com;user=phone> Call-ID: 82869774@pbx CSeq: 24410 INVITE That is not even a RFC-compliant packet. Not even talking about RFC3581 (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3581.txt, August 2003), which is not set to the actual port. The content-length is not set. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrewgroup Posted January 16, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 16, 2008 That is not even a RFC-compliant packet. Not even talking about RFC3581 (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3581.txt, August 2003), which is not set to the actual port. The content-length is not set. I know to little to challenge that statement, and I'm getting lost in all the packet captures. I do know they have Alworx, Asterisk and Hosted phones, Cisco IAD 2400's all on the switch and it's all SIP. The ITSP has provided all of the IP information. They say while calls may come from on IP they'll hand off the media to another IP thus no traffic actually passed through the BTS10200 switch. I have a barebones PBXnSIP on a public IP of the ITSP running WIN. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vodia PBX Posted January 16, 2008 Report Share Posted January 16, 2008 I know to little to challenge that statement, and I'm getting lost in all the packet captures. I do know they have Alworx, Asterisk and Hosted phones, Cisco IAD 2400's all on the switch and it's all SIP. Well, the other thing is maybe the domain name in the from header. I can understand that they would not like "localhost", maybe you should rename the primary domain alias to something that they expect... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.