Dear List
I am trying to interconnect with a Cisco Call manager express, i am sending the INVITE message with the below format:
INVITE sip:22775019@81.21.39.153 SIP/2.0 Record-Route: sip:81.21.38.33;lr=on;ftag=685329680;did=671.51a2 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 81.21.38.33;branch=z9hG4bKda1d.291eab1622fb619ec7df3ca647581a19.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 81.21.35.22:5060;branch=z9hG4bKterm-4a32-99665015-6855A22775019-37284 From: 99665015 sip:99665015@81.21.35.22;user=phone;tag=685329680 To: 6855A22775019 sip:6855A22775019@81.21.38.33;user=phone Call-ID: 6fea2437-2d338fcf-4efc6b90-2d08@81.21.35.22 CSeq: 1 INVITE Supported: timer Session-Expires: 1800 Min-SE: 1800 Contact: sip:99665015@81.21.35.22:5060 Allow: INVITE,ACK,PRACK,SUBSCRIBE,BYE,CANCEL,NOTIFY,INFO,REFER,UPDATE Max-Forwards: 69 Content-Type: application/sdp Content-Length: 528 P-hint: outbound
v=0 o=- 3099173 0 IN IP4 81.21.35.44 s=Cisco SDP 0 c=IN IP4 81.21.35.44 t=0 0 m=audio 52168 RTP/AVP 0 8 18 99 102 103 104 4 105 3 106 107 108 125 101 100 a=rtpmap:99 G.726-16/8000 a=rtpmap:102 G.726-24/8000 a=rtpmap:103 G.726-32/8000 a=rtpmap:104 G.723.1-H/8000 a=rtpmap:105 G.723.1-L/8000 a=rtpmap:106 G.729b/8000 a=rtpmap:107 G.723.1a-H/8000 a=rtpmap:108 G.723.1a-L/8000 a=rtpmap:125 G.nX64/8000 a=rtpmap:101 telephone-event/8000 a=fmtp:101 0-15 a=rtpmap:100 X-NSE/8000 a=fmtp:100 192-194 a=nortpproxy:yes
The Cisco Manager Express replies by sending the TRYING message in the below format with 1 via header:
SIP/2.0 100 Trying Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 81.21.38.33;branch=z9hG4bKda1d.291eab1622fb619ec7df3ca647581a19.0,SIP/2.0/UDP 81.21.35.22:5060 ;branch=z9hG4bKterm-4a32-99665015-6855A22775019-37284 From: 99665015 sip:99665015@81.21.35.22;user=phone;tag=685329680 To: 6855A22775019 sip:6855A22775019@81.21.38.33;user=phone Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2013 18:24:17 GMT Call-ID: 6fea2437-2d338fcf-4efc6b90-2d08@81.21.35.22 CSeq: 1 INVITE Allow-Events: telephone-event Server: Cisco-SIPGateway/IOS-12.x Content-Length: 0
Seems like Kamailio is not accepting this, is the Trying message from the client correct? Is it correct that he is sending 1 via header with 2 IP's as opposed to 2 via headers with 1 IP in each via header? Otherwise is there a solution for this?
Thanks in advance
Phillip