11 Feb
2005
11 Feb
'05
2:24 p.m.
Hi Jamey
Jamey Hicks wrote:
Here are the complete messages
------- client -> ser -------------------
SUBSCRIBE sip:user@192.168.123.2:5059 SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/TCP garbo;branch=z9hG4bK34711108142204@garbo
To: <sip:user@192.168.123.2:5059>
From: <sip:conny@192.168.123.2>;tag=1108142204
Call-ID: 0.234398746471019@garbo
CSeq: 2 SUBSCRIBE
Max-Forwards: 70
User-Agent: pua.pl 1.0.0
Event: presence
Accept: application/pidf+xml
Contact: <sip:conny@192.168.123.2>
Expires: 60
Content-Length: 0
------- ser -> client ----------------------
NOTIFY sip:conny@192.168.123.2 SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.123.2:5059;branch=z9hG4bKc2d7.f09c7145.0
To: <sip:conny@192.168.123.2>;tag=1108142204
From:
<sip:user@192.168.123.2:5059>;tag=a6f1fa7237095ed7e0e9310f6f58d8bc-9fbd
CSeq: 1 NOTIFY
Call-ID: 0.234398746471019@garbo
Content-Length: 243
User-Agent: Sip EXpress router(0.9.0 (i386/linux))
Event: presence
Content-Type: application/pidf+xml
Subscription-State: active;expires=58
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<!DOCTYPE presence PUBLIC "//IETF//DTD RFCxxxx PIDF 1.0//EN"
"pidf.dtd">
<presence entity="sip:user@192.168.123.2">
<tuple id="9r28r49">ser">
<status>
<basic>closed</basic>
</status>
</tuple>
</presence>
That would be brilliant - thank you!
Regards, Conny
--
I'm looking for a job! Specially in telecommunication software
development, testing, design, management ... preferably contract, in
germany or somewhere nice. Anyone able to help, please contact me via
http://holzhey.de, thanks.
Conny Holzhey wrote:
Yes, that's ok, ser sends the response correctly to the client. The
problem is that the pa doesn't feel responsible for the PUBLISH, and I
think I'm getting something terribly wrong here .... So may I try to
explain again
The server is configured to listen on port 5059. The client sends a
"PUBLISH sip:conny@192.168.123.2 SIP/2.0", and in the debug output of
the server, I see the following:
11(3526) grep_sock_info - checking if host==us: 13==9 &&
[192.168.123.2] == [127.0.0.1]
11(3526) grep_sock_info - checking if port 5059 matches port 5060
11(3526) grep_sock_info - checking if host==us: 13==13 &&
[192.168.123.2] == [192.168.123.2]
11(3526) grep_sock_info - checking if port 5059 matches port 5060
11(3526) grep_sock_info - checking if host==us: 13==9 &&
[192.168.123.2] == [127.0.0.1]
11(3526) grep_sock_info - checking if port 5059 matches port 5060
11(3526) grep_sock_info - checking if host==us: 13==13 &&
[192.168.123.2] == [192.168.123.2]
11(3526) grep_sock_info - checking if port 5059 matches port 5060
11(3526) check_self: host != me
and then later the client receives a 408.
So obivously the port doesn't match. Then I tried to be clever and did a
bit reverse-engineering and found out that the port is taken from the
request-URI, and when I change my message to
"PUBLISH sip:conny@192.168.123.2:5059 SIP/2.0"
it works perfectly and I get a ok. But adding that port is quite likely
the wrong way. Is there anything else to consider when running ser on a
different port?
Hi all,
I'm running ser on a port diffrent from 5060, and I found some
confusing behaviour when dealing with presence. I've set the port in
the ser.cfg file to 5059.
When sending a PUBLISH message, it seems that I have to specify the
port number in the message start-line, i.e. the message starts with
PUBLISH sip:conny@192.168.123.2:5059 SIP/2.0, and then ser answers
with 200 ok. If I skip the port number, I get a 408, Request Timeout.
Is there some configuration I'm missing that would fix this? Or is
this the correct behaviour? Actually I don't think that there should
be a port number in the PUBLISH, as this is mixing my (client)
Request-URI with the server port number. But I'm not sure, because so
far I've tested my client only on the same machine than the server,
and this is sometimes a bit confusing....
Same thing seems to be with REGISTER, and SUBSCRIBE, i.e. sending
SUBSCRIBE sip:user@192.168.123.2:5059 SIP/2.0 works for some reason.
Well, at least they are all consistent. Please take a look at the Via
headers to see if there port is being specified there. My
understanding is that the response should go to the URI in the first
Via. Is that not the behavior you are seeing? When I get a
NOTIFY from ser, there is a minor issue with the pidf
document, the tuple start tag looks like <tuple
id="9r28r49">ser">
I'll take a look at this, but please send me an sample of the complete
PUBLISH and NOTIFY messages.
Is there
somewhere a public server running ser/pa that I could use
for testing my command-line PUA?
I will set up a test account for you on one that I'm running.