Re: [sipX-dev] Disapearing Record-Route header
On Tue, 2007-04-03 at 15:14 -0400, Robert Joly wrote:
> Hi,
> I have an SipX 3.7.5-008072 located on a private network behind an
> InGate firewall. When a registered SIP phone behind an Intertex IX67
> tries to access voicemail on SipX via the Ingate, the call
> fails. After looking at the logs, it appears that the auth-proxy is
> doing some 'creative' manipulation of Record-Route headers. Let me
> explain:
>
> Setup
> =====
> IP Phone----->IX67-------->InGate------>SIPX
> (private) (public) (private)
>
> Observations
> ============
> * The INVITE that leaves the IX67 contains one RR header pointing at
> the public IP address of the IX67.
>
> * InGate adds its own RR header to the INVITE. INVITE now contains 2
> RR headers:
> RR #1 = Private IP address of InGate
> RR #2 = Public IP address of IX67
>
> * SIPX receives the INVITE containing 2 RR but the 200 OK it sends in
> response to the INVITE contains the following two RR headers:
> RR #1 = IP Address:port of the auth-proxy
> RR #2 = Public IP address of IX67
>
> Surprisingly, the RR header pointing to the InGate private IP Address
> has been removed by the auth-proxy which results in the call failing.
>
> I could not find any valid reason that would authorize the auth-proxy
> to take out the RR header of the InGate box (InGate uses distinct and
> unique user@host parms in RR).
>
> Has anybody else experienced this problem or has a technical
> explanation for his phenomenon?
Set your logging to DEBUG and repeat the test, then file an issue in the
tracker and attach a snapshot from the system. It would be helpful if
you could get the call-id from the problematic call.
(it would be a good idea to update to something >= 8089, but it
shouldn't matter).
--
Scott Lawrence tel:+1-781-938-5306;ext=162 or sip:slawrence@xxxxxxxxxxx
sipXpbx project coordinator - SIPfoundry http://www.sipfoundry.org/sipX
Chief Technology Officer - Pingtel Corp. http://www.pingtel.com/
