[SIPForum-discussion] Some issues faced during sipp xml creation ---- need suggestions

mohan mannappan mohanjan1984 at gmail.com
Sat Nov 14 06:04:28 UTC 2009


Hi all,

          1. The basic call that worked fine with normal scenario.


 UAS----------HUB------DUT----------------------------------Router--------HUB--------UAC
                        |
                    |
                        |
                    |
                        |
                    |
                        |
                    |
               WAN SER Proxy
LAN SER Proxy


*When a filter was attached and applied to the interface of DUT connecting
to hub and UAS.*
The 180 ringing is being dropped at the interface.
The same was working fine with a polycom phone.
The filter has only permit
UDP any any service sip
TCP any any service sip

a. invite from UAC to WAN SER Proxy, proxy gives 100 trying and sends the
Invitation to UAS.
b. UAS gives 180 ringing and 200 ok to WAN SER proxy, WAN SER proxy is
sending the 180 ringing *but it is getting dropped at the interface in which
the above filter is applied in the out direction.*

Doubt: Is there any specific field in the message that is making the filter
to drop 180 ringing.


2. I have only 2 linux pc's . *Can anyone tell me how to make multiple UAC
and multiple UAS in both*.
   If i know this then i can do call hold, conference and call transfer
scenario's.

3. In the xml file created for HOLD RESUME, I have given 3 invites, with 3
different  CSeq number for each but i find that only the first invite is
being sent taking different numbers from the .CSV file. The CSeq remains 1
INVITE.

Anyone who faced similar issue please, let me know as when a looping of *<send>
  <!CDATA>  </send> *occurs*. *
*
*
*4. I face the same looping in the .xml that has only the register message
but it is also getting executed multiple times.*


Thanks for your help,

     Mohan M
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sipforum.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20091114/2122ed48/attachment-0002.html>


More information about the discussion mailing list