[Kamailio-Users] What is wrong with this NOTIFY packet
Hi Group, I know this issue has to do bit more with SIP and off from kamailio problems, but just wanted to know your opinions on this. I have my sip extensions registered to kamilio and Asterisk works as a voicemail server. Now to implement MWI i send NOTIFY packet from Asterisk to Kamailio and from kamailio to SIP extension (Grandstream GXP2000). here is the packet that travels from kamailio to extension and the response sent from extension to kamilio. =========================== NOTIFY sip:1111111@arzoo.com <sip%3A1111111@arzoo.com> SIP/2.0 Max-Forwards: 10 Record-Route: <sip:172.18.100.74;lr;nat=yes> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 172.18.100.74;branch=z9hG4bK3c3.e1003f03.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 127.0.0.1:45382 ;received=172.18.100.73;branch=z9hG4bK.4f83530d;rport=45382;alias Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 172.18.100.73:5060 From: <sip:111@arzoo.com <sip%3A111@arzoo.com>> To: <sip:1111111@arzoo.com <sip%3A1111111@arzoo.com>> Contact: <sip:1111111@arzoo.com <sip%3A1111111@arzoo.com>> Call-ID: 4d61cf9e505d40e905032a18329d61ec@172.19.100.42 CSeq: 1 NOTIFY User-Agent: VoiceMail Event: message-summary Content-Type: application/simple-message-summary Content-Length: 39 =========================== SIP/2.0 415 Unacceptable Content-Type Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 172.18.100.74;branch=z9hG4bK3c3.02003f03.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 127.0.0.1:43416 ;received=172.18.100.73;branch=z9hG4bK.7be73901;rport=43416;alias Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 172.18.100.73:5060 Record-Route: <sip:172.18.100.74;lr;nat=yes> From: <sip:111@arzoo.com <sip%3A111@arzoo.com>> To: <sip:1111111@arzoo.com <sip%3A1111111@arzoo.com>>;tag=3c6ba3e4a93d6864 Call-ID: 4d61cf9e505d40e905032a18329d61ec@172.19.100.42 CSeq: 1 NOTIFY User-Agent: Grandstream GXP2000 1.1.4.14 Accept: application/sdp, application/simple-message-summary, application/octet-stream, application/dialog-info+xml, application/pidf+xml, message/sipfrag;version=2.0 Content-Length: 0 =========================== Please guide me in right direction to get rid of 'Unacceptable Content-Type' problem. Thanks in advance, --SM
The receiving endpoint doesn't support MWI. On 02/15/2010 03:25 AM, Asterisk User wrote:
Hi Group, I know this issue has to do bit more with SIP and off from kamailio problems, but just wanted to know your opinions on this. I have my sip extensions registered to kamilio and Asterisk works as a voicemail server. Now to implement MWI i send NOTIFY packet from Asterisk to Kamailio and from kamailio to SIP extension (Grandstream GXP2000). here is the packet that travels from kamailio to extension and the response sent from extension to kamilio. =========================== NOTIFY sip:1111111@arzoo.com <mailto:sip%3A1111111@arzoo.com> SIP/2.0 Max-Forwards: 10 Record-Route: <sip:172.18.100.74;lr;nat=yes> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 172.18.100.74;branch=z9hG4bK3c3.e1003f03.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 127.0.0.1:45382;received=172.18.100.73;branch=z9hG4bK.4f83530d;rport=45382;alias Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 172.18.100.73:5060 <http://172.18.100.73:5060> From: <sip:111@arzoo.com <mailto:sip%3A111@arzoo.com>> To: <sip:1111111@arzoo.com <mailto:sip%3A1111111@arzoo.com>> Contact: <sip:1111111@arzoo.com <mailto:sip%3A1111111@arzoo.com>> Call-ID: 4d61cf9e505d40e905032a18329d61ec@172.19.100.42 <mailto:4d61cf9e505d40e905032a18329d61ec@172.19.100.42> CSeq: 1 NOTIFY User-Agent: VoiceMail Event: message-summary Content-Type: application/simple-message-summary Content-Length: 39
=========================== SIP/2.0 415 Unacceptable Content-Type Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 172.18.100.74;branch=z9hG4bK3c3.02003f03.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 127.0.0.1:43416;received=172.18.100.73;branch=z9hG4bK.7be73901;rport=43416;alias Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 172.18.100.73:5060 <http://172.18.100.73:5060> Record-Route: <sip:172.18.100.74;lr;nat=yes> From: <sip:111@arzoo.com <mailto:sip%3A111@arzoo.com>> To: <sip:1111111@arzoo.com <mailto:sip%3A1111111@arzoo.com>>;tag=3c6ba3e4a93d6864 Call-ID: 4d61cf9e505d40e905032a18329d61ec@172.19.100.42 <mailto:4d61cf9e505d40e905032a18329d61ec@172.19.100.42> CSeq: 1 NOTIFY User-Agent: Grandstream GXP2000 1.1.4.14 Accept: application/sdp, application/simple-message-summary, application/octet-stream, application/dialog-info+xml, application/pidf+xml, message/sipfrag;version=2.0 Content-Length: 0
=========================== Please guide me in right direction to get rid of 'Unacceptable Content-Type' problem. Thanks in advance, --SM
_______________________________________________ Kamailio (OpenSER) - Users mailing list Users@lists.kamailio.org http://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users http://lists.openser-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
-- Alex Balashov - Principal Evariste Systems LLC Tel : +1 678-954-0670 Direct : +1 678-954-0671 Web : http://www.evaristesys.com/
15 feb 2010 kl. 09.28 skrev Alex Balashov:
The receiving endpoint doesn't support MWI. But it does if you check the accept: header!
/O
On 02/15/2010 03:25 AM, Asterisk User wrote:
Hi Group, I know this issue has to do bit more with SIP and off from kamailio problems, but just wanted to know your opinions on this. I have my sip extensions registered to kamilio and Asterisk works as a voicemail server. Now to implement MWI i send NOTIFY packet from Asterisk to Kamailio and from kamailio to SIP extension (Grandstream GXP2000). here is the packet that travels from kamailio to extension and the response sent from extension to kamilio. =========================== NOTIFY sip:1111111@arzoo.com <mailto:sip%3A1111111@arzoo.com> SIP/2.0 Max-Forwards: 10 Record-Route: <sip:172.18.100.74;lr;nat=yes> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 172.18.100.74;branch=z9hG4bK3c3.e1003f03.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 127.0.0.1:45382;received=172.18.100.73;branch=z9hG4bK.4f83530d;rport=45382;alias Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 172.18.100.73:5060 <http://172.18.100.73:5060> From: <sip:111@arzoo.com <mailto:sip%3A111@arzoo.com>> To: <sip:1111111@arzoo.com <mailto:sip%3A1111111@arzoo.com>> Contact: <sip:1111111@arzoo.com <mailto:sip%3A1111111@arzoo.com>> Call-ID: 4d61cf9e505d40e905032a18329d61ec@172.19.100.42 <mailto:4d61cf9e505d40e905032a18329d61ec@172.19.100.42> CSeq: 1 NOTIFY User-Agent: VoiceMail Event: message-summary Content-Type: application/simple-message-summary Content-Length: 39
=========================== SIP/2.0 415 Unacceptable Content-Type Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 172.18.100.74;branch=z9hG4bK3c3.02003f03.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 127.0.0.1:43416;received=172.18.100.73;branch=z9hG4bK.7be73901;rport=43416;alias Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 172.18.100.73:5060 <http://172.18.100.73:5060> Record-Route: <sip:172.18.100.74;lr;nat=yes> From: <sip:111@arzoo.com <mailto:sip%3A111@arzoo.com>> To: <sip:1111111@arzoo.com <mailto:sip%3A1111111@arzoo.com>>;tag=3c6ba3e4a93d6864 Call-ID: 4d61cf9e505d40e905032a18329d61ec@172.19.100.42 <mailto:4d61cf9e505d40e905032a18329d61ec@172.19.100.42> CSeq: 1 NOTIFY User-Agent: Grandstream GXP2000 1.1.4.14 Accept: application/sdp, application/simple-message-summary, application/octet-stream, application/dialog-info+xml, application/pidf+xml, message/sipfrag;version=2.0 Content-Length: 0
=========================== Please guide me in right direction to get rid of 'Unacceptable Content-Type' problem. Thanks in advance, --SM
_______________________________________________ Kamailio (OpenSER) - Users mailing list Users@lists.kamailio.org http://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users http://lists.openser-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
-- Alex Balashov - Principal Evariste Systems LLC
Tel : +1 678-954-0670 Direct : +1 678-954-0671 Web : http://www.evaristesys.com/
_______________________________________________ Kamailio (OpenSER) - Users mailing list Users@lists.kamailio.org http://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users http://lists.openser-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
--- * Olle E Johansson - oej@edvina.net * Cell phone +46 70 593 68 51, Office +46 8 96 40 20, Sweden
On 02/15/2010 03:30 AM, Olle E. Johansson wrote:
15 feb 2010 kl. 09.28 skrev Alex Balashov:
The receiving endpoint doesn't support MWI. But it does if you check the accept: header!
But it doesn't because it rejects the call with a 4xx final error. In practical terms, the Accept header means nothing. I agree, Granstream bug. There's no shortage of those. Best solution is to not use cheap crap. -- Alex Balashov - Principal Evariste Systems LLC Tel : +1 678-954-0670 Direct : +1 678-954-0671 Web : http://www.evaristesys.com/
15 feb 2010 kl. 09.25 skrev Asterisk User:
Hi Group, I know this issue has to do bit more with SIP and off from kamailio problems, but just wanted to know your opinions on this. I have my sip extensions registered to kamilio and Asterisk works as a voicemail server. Now to implement MWI i send NOTIFY packet from Asterisk to Kamailio and from kamailio to SIP extension (Grandstream GXP2000). here is the packet that travels from kamailio to extension and the response sent from extension to kamilio. =========================== NOTIFY sip:1111111@arzoo.com SIP/2.0 Max-Forwards: 10 Record-Route: <sip:172.18.100.74;lr;nat=yes> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 172.18.100.74;branch=z9hG4bK3c3.e1003f03.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 127.0.0.1:45382;received=172.18.100.73;branch=z9hG4bK.4f83530d;rport=45382;alias Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 172.18.100.73:5060 From: <sip:111@arzoo.com> To: <sip:1111111@arzoo.com> Contact: <sip:1111111@arzoo.com> Call-ID: 4d61cf9e505d40e905032a18329d61ec@172.19.100.42 CSeq: 1 NOTIFY User-Agent: VoiceMail Event: message-summary Content-Type: application/simple-message-summary Content-Length: 39
=========================== SIP/2.0 415 Unacceptable Content-Type Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 172.18.100.74;branch=z9hG4bK3c3.02003f03.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 127.0.0.1:43416;received=172.18.100.73;branch=z9hG4bK.7be73901;rport=43416;alias Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 172.18.100.73:5060 Record-Route: <sip:172.18.100.74;lr;nat=yes> From: <sip:111@arzoo.com> To: <sip:1111111@arzoo.com>;tag=3c6ba3e4a93d6864 Call-ID: 4d61cf9e505d40e905032a18329d61ec@172.19.100.42 CSeq: 1 NOTIFY User-Agent: Grandstream GXP2000 1.1.4.14 Accept: application/sdp, application/simple-message-summary, application/octet-stream, application/dialog-info+xml, application/pidf+xml, message/sipfrag;version=2.0 Content-Length: 0
=========================== Please guide me in right direction to get rid of 'Unacceptable Content-Type' problem. Thanks in advance,
The Content-Type that Asterisk is using in the Notify packet is actually listed in the Accept: header of the error message. I would send this as a bug report to Grandstream, unless someone else on the list figures it out. /O
On Monday 15 February 2010 09:25:41 Asterisk User wrote:
Now to implement MWI i send NOTIFY packet from Asterisk to Kamailio and from kamailio to SIP extension (Grandstream GXP2000). here is the packet that travels from kamailio to extension and the response sent from extension to kamilio. =========================== NOTIFY sip:1111111@arzoo.com <sip%3A1111111@arzoo.com> SIP/2.0 Max-Forwards: 10 Record-Route: <sip:172.18.100.74;lr;nat=yes> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 172.18.100.74;branch=z9hG4bK3c3.e1003f03.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 127.0.0.1:45382 ;received=172.18.100.73;branch=z9hG4bK.4f83530d;rport=45382;alias Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 172.18.100.73:5060 From: <sip:111@arzoo.com <sip%3A111@arzoo.com>> To: <sip:1111111@arzoo.com <sip%3A1111111@arzoo.com>>
NOTIFY's are in-dialog requests. Your From and To header are missing the required tags (and look a bit suspicious by themselves too because of the double <>). The grandstream probably can't match the NOTIFY to the correct subscription and follows a code path that for some reason decides to answer 415 instead of a 481. Alex. -- Alex Hermann
On 02/15/2010 03:58 AM, Alex Hermann wrote:
On Monday 15 February 2010 09:25:41 Asterisk User wrote:
Now to implement MWI i send NOTIFY packet from Asterisk to Kamailio and from kamailio to SIP extension (Grandstream GXP2000). here is the packet that travels from kamailio to extension and the response sent from extension to kamilio. =========================== NOTIFY sip:1111111@arzoo.com<sip%3A1111111@arzoo.com> SIP/2.0 Max-Forwards: 10 Record-Route:<sip:172.18.100.74;lr;nat=yes> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 172.18.100.74;branch=z9hG4bK3c3.e1003f03.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 127.0.0.1:45382 ;received=172.18.100.73;branch=z9hG4bK.4f83530d;rport=45382;alias Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 172.18.100.73:5060 From:<sip:111@arzoo.com<sip%3A111@arzoo.com>> To:<sip:1111111@arzoo.com<sip%3A1111111@arzoo.com>>
NOTIFY's are in-dialog requests. Your From and To header are missing the required tags (and look a bit suspicious by themselves too because of the double<>). The grandstream probably can't match the NOTIFY to the correct subscription and follows a code path that for some reason decides to answer 415 instead of a 481.
Good eye! That too. Basically, Granstream sucks. Don't bother. -- Alex Balashov - Principal Evariste Systems LLC Tel : +1 678-954-0670 Direct : +1 678-954-0671 Web : http://www.evaristesys.com/
Thanks alot for your quick replies, I didn't have double <> for To and From in my question if you check the first thread again. :) Want to add one more thing, Just to cross check, when I sent a NOTIFY packet from Asterisk to extension directly, it works showing me blinking red light on the phone!. And I can configure MWI on Grandstream phone. Please have some more thoughts, Thanks, --SM On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 2:31 PM, Alex Balashov <abalashov@evaristesys.com>wrote:
On 02/15/2010 03:58 AM, Alex Hermann wrote:
On Monday 15 February 2010 09:25:41 Asterisk User wrote:
Now to implement MWI i send NOTIFY packet from Asterisk to Kamailio and from kamailio to SIP extension (Grandstream GXP2000). here is the packet that travels from kamailio to extension and the response sent from extension to kamilio. =========================== NOTIFY sip:1111111@arzoo.com <sip%3A1111111@arzoo.com>< sip%3A1111111@arzoo.com <sip%253A1111111@arzoo.com>> SIP/2.0 Max-Forwards: 10 Record-Route:<sip:172.18.100.74;lr;nat=yes> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 172.18.100.74;branch=z9hG4bK3c3.e1003f03.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 127.0.0.1:45382 ;received=172.18.100.73;branch=z9hG4bK.4f83530d;rport=45382;alias Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 172.18.100.73:5060 From:<sip:111@arzoo.com <sip%3A111@arzoo.com><sip%3A111@arzoo.com<sip%253A111@arzoo.com>
To:<sip:1111111@arzoo.com <sip%3A1111111@arzoo.com>< sip%3A1111111@arzoo.com <sip%253A1111111@arzoo.com>>>
NOTIFY's are in-dialog requests. Your From and To header are missing the required tags (and look a bit suspicious by themselves too because of the double<>). The grandstream probably can't match the NOTIFY to the correct subscription and follows a code path that for some reason decides to answer 415 instead of a 481.
Good eye! That too.
Basically, Granstream sucks. Don't bother.
-- Alex Balashov - Principal Evariste Systems LLC
Tel : +1 678-954-0670 Direct : +1 678-954-0671 Web : http://www.evaristesys.com/
_______________________________________________ Kamailio (OpenSER) - Users mailing list Users@lists.kamailio.org http://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users http://lists.openser-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
15 feb 2010 kl. 10.01 skrev Alex Balashov:
On 02/15/2010 03:58 AM, Alex Hermann wrote:
On Monday 15 February 2010 09:25:41 Asterisk User wrote:
Now to implement MWI i send NOTIFY packet from Asterisk to Kamailio and from kamailio to SIP extension (Grandstream GXP2000). here is the packet that travels from kamailio to extension and the response sent from extension to kamilio. =========================== NOTIFY sip:1111111@arzoo.com<sip%3A1111111@arzoo.com> SIP/2.0 Max-Forwards: 10 Record-Route:<sip:172.18.100.74;lr;nat=yes> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 172.18.100.74;branch=z9hG4bK3c3.e1003f03.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 127.0.0.1:45382 ;received=172.18.100.73;branch=z9hG4bK.4f83530d;rport=45382;alias Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 172.18.100.73:5060 From:<sip:111@arzoo.com<sip%3A111@arzoo.com>> To:<sip:1111111@arzoo.com<sip%3A1111111@arzoo.com>>
NOTIFY's are in-dialog requests. Your From and To header are missing the required tags (and look a bit suspicious by themselves too because of the double<>). The grandstream probably can't match the NOTIFY to the correct subscription and follows a code path that for some reason decides to answer 415 instead of a 481.
Good eye! That too.
Basically, Granstream sucks. Don't bother.
Well, I think that Asterisk has a bit of blame to take here too. Asterisk sends NOTIFY without having received a SUBSCRIBE, which is why they look out-of-dialog. You can configure Asterisk to only send NOTIFY with a subscription, in which case this won't happen. It's an old story, and most phones actually accept NOTIFY's for voicemail out-of-the-blue, outside of any known dialogs. /O
2010/2/15 Alex Hermann <alex@speakup.nl>:
On Monday 15 February 2010 09:25:41 Asterisk User wrote:
Now to implement MWI i send NOTIFY packet from Asterisk to Kamailio and from kamailio to SIP extension (Grandstream GXP2000). here is the packet that travels from kamailio to extension and the response sent from extension to kamilio. =========================== NOTIFY sip:1111111@arzoo.com <sip%3A1111111@arzoo.com> SIP/2.0 Max-Forwards: 10 Record-Route: <sip:172.18.100.74;lr;nat=yes> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 172.18.100.74;branch=z9hG4bK3c3.e1003f03.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 127.0.0.1:45382 ;received=172.18.100.73;branch=z9hG4bK.4f83530d;rport=45382;alias Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 172.18.100.73:5060 From: <sip:111@arzoo.com <sip%3A111@arzoo.com>> To: <sip:1111111@arzoo.com <sip%3A1111111@arzoo.com>>
NOTIFY's are in-dialog requests. Your From and To header are missing the required tags (and look a bit suspicious by themselves too because of the double <>).
There is no double <> in the original post. But some mailclients corrupt a SIP URI appearing into a mail by splitting it into a display name and mail URI :( -- Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>
On Monday 15 February 2010, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
2010/2/15 Alex Hermann <alex@speakup.nl>:
On Monday 15 February 2010 09:25:41 Asterisk User wrote:
From: <sip:111@arzoo.com <sip%3A111@arzoo.com>> To: <sip:1111111@arzoo.com <sip%3A1111111@arzoo.com>> There is no double <> in the original post. But some mailclients corrupt a SIP URI appearing into a mail by splitting it into a display name and mail URI :(
The quote above is directly coming from his email (the text/plain part). To prevent confusion in the future I suggest he fixes his mail client to not alter the sent emails. And to send text/plain email only. I never read text/html (parts of) emails, which in this case, seemed to have different content from the text/plain part. Alex.
participants (5)
-
Alex Balashov -
Alex Hermann -
Asterisk User -
Iñaki Baz Castillo -
Olle E. Johansson