I'm not sure I understand the trace here. Process 7073 shows several errors from is_user_in and loose_route. This should indicate that it is processing a method, not a response. Do you accidentally call a route meant for forwarding after adding a branch? g-)
SIP wrote:
We've never seen this one come through before, so I'm thinking it's in some way related to the cortelco US that's being used.
Jun 24 10:15:26 proxy ser[7081]: ACC: call missed: method=INVITE, i-uri=sip:1101XXXXXXX@CLIENT.IP.ADDRESS:60001, o-uri=sip:1101XXXXXXX@CLIENT.IP.ADDRESS:60001, call_id=53ca8e9573a1aa535700119a21ce693c@CLIENT.IP.ADDRESS, from=sip:1315XXXXXXX@our.proxy.com;tag=as67cfdba3, code=410 Gone Jun 24 10:15:26 proxy ser[7073]: ERROR: parse_uri: uri too short: <2.0> (3) Jun 24 10:15:26 proxy ser[7073]: is_user_in(): Error while parsing URI Jun 24 10:15:26 proxy ser[7073]: ERROR: parse_uri: uri too short: <2.0> (3) Jun 24 10:15:26 proxy ser[7073]: ERROR: parse_sip_msg_uri: bad uri <2.0> Jun 24 10:15:26 proxy ser[7073]: loose_route: Error while parsing Request URI Jun 24 10:15:26 proxy ser[7073]: ERROR: parse_uri: uri too short: <2.0> (3) Jun 24 10:15:26 proxy ser[7073]: ERROR: parse_sip_msg_uri: bad uri <2.0> Jun 24 10:15:26 proxy ser[7073]: WARNING: do_action:error in expression Jun 24 10:15:26 proxy ser[7073]: ERROR: parse_uri: uri too short: <2.0> (3) Jun 24 10:15:26 proxy ser[7073]: ERROR: parse_sip_msg_uri: bad uri <2.0>
This is on a response to the reinvite BACK to the local user (1101XXXXXXX) from the PSTN (1315XXXXXXX).
The actual block looks like:
U CLIENT.IP.ADDRESS:60001 -> OUR.PROXY.IP.ADDRESS:5060 SIP/2.0 410 Gone. Via: SIP/2.0/UDP OUR.PROXY.IP.ADDRESS:5060;branch=z9hG4bKffae.1a137353.0. Via: SIP/2.0/UDP OUR.PSTN.GATEWAY.ADDRESS:5090;branch=z9hG4bK338d81c7;rport=5090. From: sip:1315XXXXXXX@our.proxy.com;tag=as67cfdba3. To: "David Jarrett" sip:1101XXXXXXX@our.proxy.com;tag=53c99d61. Contact: sip:1101XXXXXXX@CLIENT.IP.ADDRESS:60001. Call-ID: 53ca8e9573a1aa535700119a21ce693c@CLIENT.IP.ADDRESS. CSeq: 102 INVITE. Content-Length: 0.
I'm really not sure which part of the URI is too short (or, to be honest, why SER spits out that message). Clearly '2.0' is not a valid URI... but I'm not entirely sure where it's getting that as the URI.
Ideas? We're running 0.9.6.
N.
Serusers mailing list Serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers