| Zitat: |
Hi there,
I use the Bria for iPhone as SIP-clent via TCP-transport. Everything had been fine until the new version was pushed out. They’ve changed format of header, but it still correspond to the standards though as they affirm.
Here it is the header from log of the older version, it works fine:
Contact: <sip:xxxxxx-1082@192.168.0.10:62799;transport=tcp>;
+sip.instance=« <urn:uuid:22caa650900012da01636af0bba72626ba28359b>";reg-id=1
Here it is the new one and a warning after:
Contact: <sip:xxxxxx-1082@192.168.0.10:62370;
rinstance=c82b652c896f558e;transport=tcp>
NOTICE[127241] chan_sip.c: ‘<sip:xxxxxx-1082@192.168.0.10:62370;
rinstance=c82b652c896f558e;transport=tc' is not a valid SIP contact (missing sip: ) trying to use anyway
Below is the statement from vendor of Bria:
"It seems that your PBX has a problem with the contact header that Bria is sending internally somehow. It does receive the request successfully, and the Contact: header is well formed on reception and initial parsing. However, it has internally truncated the end off of this header.
This header is well formed as sent by Bria and initially parsed by your PBX, so something in your PBX is likely truncating this incorrectly. The logging level doesn't show how/why it's done this, but I suspect it might be related to the length of the first information in the angle brackets. There is a difference in the contact header Bria sends in the two versions. Both are well formed, but are different implementations.
I suspect there’s something you should be able to change with your PBX implementation which will prevent it from performing the truncation and this should solve the issue you’re having."
As a result Bria can’t receive any incoming call using TCP transport. Could you investigate it? |
|
Is it possible to obtain an any answer for my report?! I don’t insist on supporting of me but I expect for some attention to the problem by this way this service will be more predictable, isn’t it?
This post has been edited 5 time(s), it was last edited by joi on 28.12.2015 at 15:43.
|
RE: TCP transport problem