On 06/22/2015 11:41 AM, kai.ohnac...@cbc.de wrote: > In the txt file you can find the ngrep traffic. > > Cheers, > Kai > > --------------------------------------------------------- > > Perhaps you have an ngrep of the sip traffic? > > --fred >
Is .3 the user, .1 the kamailio, and .33 the SBC? U 2015/06/22 17:08:53.229016 192.168.0.1:5060 -> 192.168.0.33:5060 INVITE sip:1001@192.168.0.33:5060 SIP/2.0 Record-Route: <sip:192.168.0.1;lr=on> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.0.1;branch=z9hG4bK3504.df39a8277f82eb6121d9c32883c70ead.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.0.3:6060;branch=z9hG4bK0a9b.47eca853.0 From: "PhonerLite" <sip:1000@192.168.1.3:8000>;tag=3066030555 To: <sip:1001@192.168.1.3:8000> Call-ID: SBCbFhRRnpBd3ZEUWNUVF8gQWVZREoKMXhvWVMSVCUxUzIVWSpCCUJ4cEdWZV1NQ0tFYQ== CSeq: 5 INVITE U 2015/06/22 17:08:53.239973 192.168.0.33:5060 -> 192.168.0.1:5060 SIP/2.0 200 OK Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.0.1;branch=z9hG4bK3504.df39a8277f82eb6121d9c32883c70ead.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.0.3:6060;branch=z9hG4bK0a9b.47eca853.0 Max-Forwards: 70 To: <sip:1001@192.168.1.3:8000>;tag=krTfxNsCTuX From: "PhonerLite" <sip:1000@192.168.1.3:8000>;tag=3066030555 Call-ID: SBCbFhRRnpBd3ZEUWNUVF8gQWVZREoKMXhvWVMSVCUxUzIVWSpCCUJ4cEdWZV1NQ0tFYQ CSeq: 1 It almost looks like the SBC is replying with a register request (which is being responded with a correct CSeq increment). On the invite initially sent to the SBC with a 5, the sbc responds with a 1. --fred _______________________________________________ SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list sr-users@lists.sip-router.org http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
