25 Feb
2006
25 Feb
'06
1:23 p.m.
A UA is trying to send NOTIFY:
U 1.2.3.4:56839 -> 5.6.7.8:5060
NOTIFY sip:machine.foo.com SIP/2.0.
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 1.2.3.4:56839;branch=z9hG4bK-ee80efbb.
From: TPA - PSTN <sip:9876@machine.foo.com>;tag=ddf83b1b7d0b3b06o1.
To: <sip:machine.foo.com>.
Call-ID: e368f273-a2f62b8e(a)192.168.251.10.
CSeq: 31511 NOTIFY.
Max-Forwards: 70.
Event: keep-alive.
User-Agent: Sipura/SPA3000-2.0.13(GWg).
Content-Length: 0.
The reponse is:
U 5.6.7.8:5060 -> 1.2.3.4:56839
SIP/2.0 404 User Not Found - lookup_location.
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 1.2.3.4:56839;branch=z9hG4bK-ee80efbb.
From: TPA - PSTN <sip:9876@machine.foo.com>;tag=ddf83b1b7d0b3b06o1.
To: <sip:machine.foo.com>;tag=efa044f399b3f75e8ec9d81a905f914f.d18f.
Call-ID: e368f273-a2f62b8e(a)192.168.251.10.
CSeq: 31511 NOTIFY.
Server: Sip EXpress router (0.9.7-pre1 (i386/freebsd)).
Content-Length: 0.
Warning: 392 5.6.7.8:5060 "Noisy feedback tells: pid=15425
req_src_ip=1.2.3.4 req_src_port=56839 in_uri=sip:machine.foo.com
out_uri=sip:machine.foo.com via_cnt==1".
From the logs we see among other things:
Feb 25 08:09:13 machine /usr/local/sbin/ser[15425]: lookup(): '' Not
found in usrloc
Can anyone tell me why the user is not found ?
Any help here is greatly appreciated
-kim
--
w8hdkim(a)gmail.com
25 Feb
25 Feb
2:53 p.m.
Hmmm,
could you tell me from the message dump, which user do you want to lookup?
Michal
On Sat, Feb 25, 2006 at 08:23:43AM -0500, Kim Culhan wrote:
A UA is trying to send NOTIFY:
U 1.2.3.4:56839 -> 5.6.7.8:5060
NOTIFY sip:machine.foo.com SIP/2.0.
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 1.2.3.4:56839;branch=z9hG4bK-ee80efbb.
From: TPA - PSTN <sip:9876@machine.foo.com>;tag=ddf83b1b7d0b3b06o1.
To: <sip:machine.foo.com>.
Call-ID: e368f273-a2f62b8e(a)192.168.251.10.
CSeq: 31511 NOTIFY.
Max-Forwards: 70.
Event: keep-alive.
User-Agent: Sipura/SPA3000-2.0.13(GWg).
Content-Length: 0.
The reponse is:
U 5.6.7.8:5060 -> 1.2.3.4:56839
SIP/2.0 404 User Not Found - lookup_location.
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 1.2.3.4:56839;branch=z9hG4bK-ee80efbb.
From: TPA - PSTN <sip:9876@machine.foo.com>;tag=ddf83b1b7d0b3b06o1.
To: <sip:machine.foo.com>;tag=efa044f399b3f75e8ec9d81a905f914f.d18f.
Call-ID: e368f273-a2f62b8e(a)192.168.251.10.
CSeq: 31511 NOTIFY.
Server: Sip EXpress router (0.9.7-pre1 (i386/freebsd)).
Content-Length: 0.
Warning: 392 5.6.7.8:5060 "Noisy feedback tells: pid=15425
req_src_ip=1.2.3.4 req_src_port=56839 in_uri=sip:machine.foo.com
out_uri=sip:machine.foo.com via_cnt==1".
From the logs we see among other things:
Feb 25 08:09:13 machine /usr/local/sbin/ser[15425]: lookup(): '' Not
found in usrloc
Can anyone tell me why the user is not found ?
Any help here is greatly appreciated
-kim
--
w8hdkim(a)gmail.com
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers 
4:25 p.m.
Kim Culhan wrote:
A UA is trying to send NOTIFY:
U 1.2.3.4:56839 -> 5.6.7.8:5060
NOTIFY sip:machine.foo.com SIP/2.0.
There is no user in this NOTIFY message. So there is nothing that SER
can lookup. This is probably just a keep-alive.
--
Andres
Technical Support
http://www.telesip.net
4:48 p.m.
On 2/25/06, Andres <andres(a)telesip.net> wrote:
Kim Culhan wrote:
Yes I think it is just a keep-alive.
Thanks also to "Michal Matyska" <michal(a)iptel.org> who wrote:
A UA is trying to send NOTIFY:
U 1.2.3.4:56839 -> 5.6.7.8:5060
NOTIFY sip:machine.foo.com SIP/2.0.
There is no user in this NOTIFY message. So there is nothing that SER
can lookup. This is probably just a keep-alive. Hmmm,
could you tell me from the message dump, which user do you want to lookup?
This is what I don't understand, where is the user name located ?
What alternative action is there be if you have:
if (!lookup("location")) {
sl_send_reply("404", "User Not Found -
lookup_location");
break;
};
So, what causes the lookup in userloc db to fail ?
As Michal points out, for a keep-alive message like this one
there is no user in the usrloc dbso it must return a 404 error ?
Is the UA sending the keep-alive doing the wrong thing ?
-kim
--
w8hdkim(a)gmail.com
6:27 p.m.
So, what causes the lookup in userloc db to fail ?
As Michal points out, for a keep-alive message like this one
there is no user in the usrloc dbso it must return a 404 error ?
The 404 message is harmless. But if you don't like it, you can insert
the following code snippet before the user lookup:
if (method == "NOTIFY"){
sl_send_reply("200", "OK");
break;
};
Is the UA sending the keep-alive doing the wrong thing
?
-kim
--
w8hdkim(a)gmail.com
--
Andres
Technical Support
http://www.telesip.net
7:58 p.m.
On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 11:48:38 -0500, Kim Culhan wrote
On 2/25/06, Andres <andres(a)telesip.net> wrote:
Is this a Snom phone by any chance? I know they use NOTIFY messages as a
keep-alive, although a few others do as well. In my config, I have a section
to handle just that:
if((method=="NOTIFY") && search("^Event: keep-alive"))
{
sl_send_reply("200", "OK");
break;
};
Kim Culhan wrote:
Yes I think it is just a keep-alive.
Thanks also to "Michal Matyska" <michal(a)iptel.org> who wrote:
A UA is trying to send NOTIFY:
U 1.2.3.4:56839 -> 5.6.7.8:5060
NOTIFY sip:machine.foo.com SIP/2.0.
There is no user in this NOTIFY message. So there is nothing that SER
can lookup. This is probably just a keep-alive. Hmmm,
could you tell me from the message dump, which user do you want to lookup?
This is what I don't understand, where is the user name located ?
What alternative action is there be if you have:
if (!lookup("location")) {
sl_send_reply("404", "User Not Found -
lookup_location"); break; };
So, what causes the lookup in userloc db to fail ?
As Michal points out, for a keep-alive message like this one
there is no user in the usrloc dbso it must return a 404 error ?
Is the UA sending the keep-alive doing the wrong thing ?
-kim
8:30 p.m.
On Saturday 25 February 2006 20:58, sip wrote:
On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 11:48:38 -0500, Kim Culhan wrote
> Is the UA sending the keep-alive doing the wrong thing ?
No. Sending NOTIFY's instead of empty packets is maybe a waste of bandwith but
it is nothing wrong in sending any SIP request for keep alive purposes.
Is this a Snom phone by any chance? I know they use
NOTIFY messages as a
keep-alive, although a few others do as well. In my config, I have a
section to handle just that:
From Kim's original mail you can see that it is a Sipura phone which sends the
NOTIFY's. I'm very doubtfull about Snom phones using NOTIFY's for keep alive
purposes, because they send empty packet (4 bytes) for keep alive.
Greetings
Nils
9:22 p.m.
On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 21:30:53 +0100, Nils Ohlmeier wrote
On Saturday 25 February 2006 20:58, sip wrote:
I've got a Snom 200 that sends a NOTIFY for keep-alive. It's running an OLD
version of the Snom firmware, though, so I can maintain some for compatibility
testing with some of our old business clients.
It always kind of bothered me that it would send a whole message, but
whatever. I don't write the code. ;)
N.
On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 11:48:38 -0500, Kim Culhan
wrote
> Is the UA sending the keep-alive doing the wrong thing ?
No. Sending NOTIFY's instead of empty packets is maybe a waste of
bandwith but it is nothing wrong in sending any SIP request for keep
alive purposes.
Is this a Snom phone by any chance? I know they
use NOTIFY messages as a
keep-alive, although a few others do as well. In my config, I have a
section to handle just that:
From Kim's original mail you can see that it
is a Sipura phone which sends the
NOTIFY's. I'm very doubtfull about Snom
phones using NOTIFY's for
keep alive purposes, because they send empty packet (4 bytes) for
keep alive.
26 Feb
26 Feb
1:50 p.m.
On Sat, February 25, 2006 2:58 pm, sip said:
On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 11:48:38 -0500, Kim Culhan wrote
This is a Sipura SPA-841 with NAT Keep Alive Enable: set to YES
It sends a NOTIFY about every 10 seconds where the replies are:
SIP/2.0 404 User Not Found
Adding the above test for NOTIFY and keep-alive to
features-callfwd.cfg 15 2005-09-15:
# -----------------------------------------------------------------
# Call Type Processing Section
# -----------------------------------------------------------------
if (!is_uri_host_local()) {
if (is_from_local() || allow_trusted()) {
route(4);
route(1);
} else {
sl_send_reply("403", "Forbidden");
};
break;
};
if((method=="NOTIFY") && search("^Event: keep-alive"))
{
sl_send_reply("200", "OK");
break;
} else if (method=="CANCEL") {
route(1);
break;
Results in sending: SIP/2.0 200 OK to the Sipura.
regards
-kim
--
w8hdkim er gmail.com
On 2/25/06, Andres <andres(a)telesip.net>
wrote:
Is this a Snom phone by any chance? I know they use NOTIFY messages as a
keep-alive, although a few others do as well. In my config, I have a
section to handle just that:
if((method=="NOTIFY") && search("^Event: keep-alive")) {
sl_send_reply("200", "OK"); break; }; Kim Culhan wrote:
Yes I think it is just a keep-alive.
Thanks also to "Michal Matyska" <michal(a)iptel.org> who wrote:
A UA is trying to send NOTIFY:
U 1.2.3.4:56839 -> 5.6.7.8:5060
NOTIFY sip:machine.foo.com SIP/2.0.
There is no user in this NOTIFY message. So there is nothing that
SER
can lookup. This is probably just a keep-alive. Hmmm,
could you tell me from the message dump, which user do you want to
lookup?
This is what I don't understand, where is the user name located ?
What alternative action is there be if you have:
if (!lookup("location")) { sl_send_reply("404", "User Not Found
-
lookup_location"); break; };
So, what causes the lookup in userloc db to fail ?
As Michal points out, for a keep-alive message like this one
there is no user in the usrloc dbso it must return a 404 error ?
Is the UA sending the keep-alive doing the wrong thing ?
-kim
6715
days inactive
6716
days old
8 comments
6 participants
participants (6)
-
Andres -
Kim Culhan -
Michal Matyska -
Nils Ohlmeier -
sip -
sip