REGISTER - 400 BAD REQUEST

[Baxter]

1. Brekeke Product Name and version: Version 2.4.8.6 Evaluation

2. Java version: 6U27

3. OS type and the version: Windows 7 32bit

4. UA (phone), gateway or other hardware/software involved: X-Lite 3.0, Cisco 2901 VGW

5. Select your network pattern from http://www.brekeke-sip.com/bbs/network/ ... terns.html : Pattern2

6. Your problem:

Hi,

I am performing some comparison tests between Kamailio and Brekeke, discovering the following issue:

UAC send three REGISTER messages to Brekeke in the following order:

1) FROM: sip:1@[BrekekeIP]
TO: sip:1@[BrekekeIP]
Contact: sip:1@[UAC IP]:5060

2) FROM: sip:2@[BrekekeIP]
TO: sip:2@[BrekekeIP]
Contact: sip:1@[UAC IP]:5060

3) FROM: sip:3@[BrekekeIP]
TO: sip:3@[BrekekeIP]
Contact: sip:1@[UAC IP]:5060

REGISTER 1 is accepted, but 2 and 3 denied with 400 Bad Request. The Registers Client tab shows just one entry for User 1. None entries for 2 and 3.

Doing the same with Kamailio works. I got and AOR for sip:2@[BrekekeIP] and sip:3@[BrekekeIP] with the contact of the UAC.

Does Brekeke not support AOR out of the box? Any configuration or parameter settings to change?

Thanks a lot for your help!
Br
Michael

[Haddas]

What kind of SIP UA are you using for sending these REGISTER packets?

Is the Contact-URI parseable?

Can you paste these REGISTER packets here?

[Haddas]

The "400 Bad Request" will happen if...
- Contact URI points the SIP Server's IP address.
- There are syntax errors in a REGISTER packet.

[Baxter]

Hi,

Yes, the contact URI of Register 2 and 3 is pointing to the Brekeke IP.

Why I haven`t seen that before?? ;(

I have to check if this is not correct according to RFC and why it is working with Kamailio SIP Server.

Maybe you have some hints?

Thanks!
Mike

[Baxter]

Hi,

Yes, the contact URI of Register 2 and 3 is pointing to the Brekeke IP.

Why I haven`t seen that before?? ;(

I have to check if this is not correct according to RFC and why it is working with Kamailio SIP Server.

Maybe you have some hints?

Thanks!
Mike

Hi,

I have screended some RFCs, mainly 3261, an up to know I found no indication that using the Registrar/Proxy IP in the contact is not allowed.

The AOR in the Kamailio user list shows:

AOR:: 2@[KamailioIP]
Contact:: sip:1@[KamailioIP] Q=
Expires:: 3596
Callid:: 1784755736-26526224-1318416579934@[UAC IP]
Cseq:: 1
User-agent:: SipTapi
State:: CS_SYNC
Flags:: 0
Cflag:: 0
Socket:: udp:[KamailioIP]:5060
Methods:: 4294967295

AOR:: 1@[Kamailio IP]
Contact:: sip:1@[UAC IP]:5060 Q=
Expires:: 3596
Callid:: 3523753626-26526224-1318416579933@[UAC IP]
Cseq:: 1
User-agent:: SipTapi
State:: CS_SYNC
Flags:: 0
Cflag:: 0
Socket:: udp:[KamailioIP]:5060
Methods:: 4294967295


So AOR 1 refers with the contact to AOR 2, which has the UAC as contact.

Any ideas how this can be realized with Brekeke??

Br
Mike

[Haddas]

>> Yes, the contact URI of Register 2 and 3 is pointing to the Brekeke IP.

It is the reason.

Why does your UA point the SIP server's address in a Contact?


Anyway.. try the following DialPlan rule which will work as you want.

--------------------------------
[Matching Patterns]
$request = ^REGISTER
$localhost( Contact ) = true
$reguri( Contact ) = (.+)

[Deploy Patterns]
Contact = %1
$action = register
--------------------------------

[Baxter]

Hi,

because if I call AOR 2@[BrekekeIP] from the VGW, every UAC registered for this AOR should ring.

You can name this implicit registration.

With the provided DailPlan, just one UAC is ringing, even I have 2 registration entries for User 2, namely the contact of UAC A and B.

In the wireshark trace, I can see that Brekeke is forwarding the Call to just one registered UAC, not to both (no parallel forking).

I found some old threats (2007), that Brekeke SIP Server is not supporting forking. Is this still valid?

Found no clear indication that it is supported by the PBX too: http://www.sip.by/buy/buy_edition_comparison.php

Br
Mike

[Haddas]

if you want to use a forking, let you try Brekeke PBX which has the feature.