Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago
Signalling trace, comments starting with *****:
**** the first REGISTER
REGISTER sip:sip.qsc.de SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 127.0.0.1;rport;branch=z9hG4bK53429
Max-Forwards: 70
To: <sip:021317399404@sip.qsc.de>
From: <sip:021317399404@sip.qsc.de>;tag=z9hG4bK19280994
Call-ID: 577688919338@127.0.0.1
CSeq: 1 REGISTER
Contact: <sip:021317399404@127.0.0.1>
Expires: 3600
User-Agent: Sipdroid/1.1.1 beta
Content-Length: 0
**** answered with 401 by SBC because no credentials included (correct)
SIP/2.0 401 Unauthorized
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 127.0.0.1;branch=z9hG4bK53429;received=83.236.48.1;rport=54746
Call-ID: 577688919338@127.0.0.1
From: <sip:021317399404@sip.qsc.de>;tag=z9hG4bK19280994
To: <sip:021317399404@sip.qsc.de>;tag=ed542666
CSeq: 1 REGISTER
Server: QSC SIP Router
WWW-Authenticate: Digest
realm="qsc.de",nonce="4ac311b1c69d82dc6561810ba14fb7114f076d48",qop="auth"
Content-Length: 0
**** now the second REGISTER, this includes credentials for the given nonce
**** Note the "Via:" header, which is 100% the same as in the first REGISTER
**** request. This violates RFC3261, section 8117 [The Via Header].
REGISTER sip:sip.qsc.de SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 127.0.0.1;rport;branch=z9hG4bK53429
Max-Forwards: 70
To: <sip:021317399404@sip.qsc.de>
From: <sip:021317399404@sip.qsc.de>;tag=z9hG4bK19280994
Call-ID: 577688919338@127.0.0.1
CSeq: 2 REGISTER
Contact: <sip:021317399404@127.0.0.1>
Expires: 3600
User-Agent: Sipdroid/1.1.1 beta
Authorization: Digest username="021317399404", realm="qsc.de",
nonce="4ac311b1c69d82dc6561810ba14fb7114f076d48", uri="sip:sip.qsc.de",
qop=auth,
nc=00000001, cnonce="fcf36f58851fa56f",
response="3c02fe4a3220a81a016e5003ac0de3b2"
Content-Length: 0
**** The SBC replies 401 again. Note that the answer obviously refers to the
**** first (!) REGISTER (see CSeq header). That's because the SBC identifies
**** the second REGISTER as identical to the first one because of identical
**** VIA branch tags.
SIP/2.0 401 Unauthorized
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 127.0.0.1;branch=z9hG4bK53429;received=83.236.48.1;rport=54746
Call-ID: 577688919338@127.0.0.1
From: <sip:021317399404@sip.qsc.de>;tag=z9hG4bK19280994
To: <sip:021317399404@sip.qsc.de>;tag=ed542666
CSeq: 1 REGISTER
Server: QSC SIP Router
WWW-Authenticate: Digest
realm="qsc.de",nonce="4ac311b1c69d82dc6561810ba14fb7114f076d48",qop="auth"
Content-Length: 0
Original comment by roland...@googlemail.com
on 30 Sep 2009 at 11:13
[deleted comment]
[deleted comment]
[deleted comment]
[deleted comment]
Original comment by pmerl...@googlemail.com
on 2 Oct 2009 at 8:42
would there be a patch to fix this call-id Issue of the 127.0.0.1
thanks
Original comment by Ritzt...@gmail.com
on 6 Oct 2009 at 11:08
same as Issue 21: branch id is not unique for subsequent REGISTRATION
transactions
I have provided patch for this issue.
Original comment by yuxiao...@gmail.com
on 12 Dec 2009 at 11:35
Original comment by pmerl...@googlemail.com
on 14 Dec 2009 at 8:54
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
roland...@googlemail.com
on 30 Sep 2009 at 11:09