[SIPForum-discussion] Doubt regarding sipp with SER

[mohan mannappan]

Hi all,


             I need to automate some of the SIP testing features with SIPP.
             The Topology that we use using Polycom phones is :


                   50.0.0.10            50.0.0.254           9.9.9.2
                     9.9.9.1          60.0.0.254               60.0.0.10

 UAS--------------HUB--------------------Router----------------------------------------------------Router------------------HUB-------------------UAC
                                  |
                                  |
                                  |
               Linux box SER proxy and registrar


The Scenario is that :

UAC side is considered as WAN.
UAS side is considered as LAN.
Both UAC and UAS need to register with the SER server.
The call should be made from WAN to LAN.


###############################################

For both i am using

REGISTER message in xml to register to the servers.


################################################

In From and to, i use the SER's ip address bcoz both UAC and UAS is
registered with the SER

i.e from :  101 at 50.0.0.1  where 101 is the number of UAC
    To    :  201 at 50.0.0.1  where 201 is the number of UAS

I am making a call with the normal polycom phone with the same topology,
captured the ethereal and then did all this.

Everything is fine but atlast when UAC is sending the BYE, SER forwards it
to UAS and UAS gives 200 ok but SER does not send it to UAC hence the call
fails.

Please, help me with how to troubleshoot, such a Scenario.

Note : I have attached the diagram of the Scenario.


Regards,

Mohan M
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sipforum.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20091031/b8c47607/attachment-0002.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: New Microsoft Word Document.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 30208 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://sipforum.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20091031/b8c47607/attachment-0002.doc>