" /> SIP messages abnormal behavior - Genesys CTI User Forum

Author Topic: SIP messages abnormal behavior  (Read 2558 times)

Offline Junaid

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 10
  • Karma: 0
SIP messages abnormal behavior
« on: December 01, 2015, 08:21:21 AM »
Advertisement
Hi Guys,

I tried to search subjected relevant thread here but unable to find it. I observed SIP messages in wrong direction or perhaps I am not observing in a correct way.

I Called from Workspace desktop(Place 5001 & IP:192.168.76.93) to Workspace desktop(5004 & IP:192.168.104.204). But in SIP server Logs I see.

[b]11:47:19.574: Sending  [0,UDP] 622 bytes to 192.168.76.93:50001 >>>>>[/b]  ???
INVITE sip:5001@192.168.76.93:50001 SIP/2.0
From: sip:5004@192.168.104.204:5080;tag=45618862-5692-4E05-9D13-81D2248FC6FD-8
To: sip:5001@192.168.104.204:5080
Call-ID: 81E1D441-DC38-4567-B6F0-11EE1DC268ED-6@192.168.104.204
CSeq: 1 INVITE


[b]11:47:19.587: SIPTR: Received [0,UDP] 472 bytes from 192.168.76.93:50001 <<<<<[/b]  ???
SIP/2.0 180 Ringing
From: sip:5004@192.168.104.204:5080;tag=45618862-5692-4E05-9D13-81D2248FC6FD-8
To: sip:5001@192.168.104.204:5080;tag=CD4A1DA8-5717-4710-9365-778854A619BD-2
Call-ID: 81E1D441-DC38-4567-B6F0-11EE1DC268ED-6@192.168.104.204
CSeq: 1 INVITE


[b]11:47:19.587: Sending  [0,UDP] 498 bytes to 192.168.76.93:50001 >>>>>[/b]
NOTIFY sip:5001@192.168.76.93:50001 SIP/2.0
From: sip:5004@192.168.104.204:5080;tag=45618862-5692-4E05-9D13-81D2248FC6FD-8
To: sip:5001@192.168.104.204:5080;tag=CD4A1DA8-5717-4710-9365-778854A619BD-2
Call-ID: 81E1D441-DC38-4567-B6F0-11EE1DC268ED-6@192.168.104.204
CSeq: 2 NOTIFY



[b]11:47:19.594: SIPTR: Received [0,UDP] 503 bytes from 192.168.76.93:50001 <<<<<[/b]
SIP/2.0 200 OK
From: sip:5004@192.168.104.204:5080;tag=45618862-5692-4E05-9D13-81D2248FC6FD-8
To: sip:5001@192.168.104.204:5080;tag=CD4A1DA8-5717-4710-9365-778854A619BD-2
Call-ID: 81E1D441-DC38-4567-B6F0-11EE1DC268ED-6@192.168.104.204
CSeq: 2 NOTIFY



[b]11:47:19.594: SIPTR: Received [0,UDP] 730 bytes from 192.168.76.93:50001 <<<<<[/b]
SIP/2.0 200 OK
From: sip:5004@192.168.104.204:5080;tag=45618862-5692-4E05-9D13-81D2248FC6FD-8
To: sip:5001@192.168.104.204:5080;tag=CD4A1DA8-5717-4710-9365-778854A619BD-2
Call-ID: 81E1D441-DC38-4567-B6F0-11EE1DC268ED-6@192.168.104.204
CSeq: 1 INVITE



[b]11:47:19.872: Sending  [0,UDP] 732 bytes to 192.168.76.93:50001 >>>>>[/b]
ACK sip:192.168.76.93:50001 SIP/2.0
From: sip:5004@192.168.104.204:5080;tag=45618862-5692-4E05-9D13-81D2248FC6FD-8
To: sip:5001@192.168.104.204:5080;tag=CD4A1DA8-5717-4710-9365-778854A619BD-2
Call-ID: 81E1D441-DC38-4567-B6F0-11EE1DC268ED-6@192.168.104.204
CSeq: 1 ACK

I just show here few extracts from SIP server as to be more specify my question. If needed, I can upload log file here. Would appreciate your kind response.

Regards,


Offline Kubig

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2755
  • Karma: 44
Re: SIP messages abnormal behavior
« Reply #1 on: December 01, 2015, 08:57:14 AM »
What is wrong? I did not see any problem there

Offline Junaid

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 10
  • Karma: 0
Re: SIP messages abnormal behavior
« Reply #2 on: December 01, 2015, 10:55:04 AM »
the call originated from 5001 (192.168.76.93) so despite INVITE came from this IP, I see SIP server send INVITE >>>>

In addition, it should be From: sip:5001  and  To: sip:5004 as normally seen in other existing SIP logs.

Regards,


Offline Kubig

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2755
  • Karma: 44
Re: SIP messages abnormal behavior
« Reply #3 on: December 01, 2015, 11:11:34 AM »
SIP Server acts as B2BUA, so the message-flow is fairly correct. When the T-Lib client makes an request to make a call, the SIP server sends the SIP INVITE message to SIPEndpoint related to the agent DN from the request comes. When this SIP call-leg ends correctly (with ACK), the SIP server should contact the dialed number and make the second SIP call-leg. From the posted fragment of log all seem properly.

Offline Junaid

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 10
  • Karma: 0
Re: SIP messages abnormal behavior
« Reply #4 on: December 02, 2015, 09:30:22 AM »
Thanks Kubig. your point makes me clear  :)