Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 8 years ago
This issue will be fixed in 3.9.3
Original comment by samuelv0...@gmail.com
on 5 Mar 2011 at 11:38
3.9.3 release, you can update
Original comment by samuelv0...@gmail.com
on 10 Mar 2011 at 11:23
Unfortunately the fix in Siphon 3.9.3 didn't work for me. It still says as
status "Unavailable" and if I try to call a number nonetheless I get the error
"forbidden". But something changed indeed, in version 3.9.2 it has made no
difference what you put in the "Auth. name" if you put in the correct account
name in the field "username". In version 3.9.3 it only works if you either put
in "username" and "Auth. name" the same correct account name or leave the
"Auth. name" empty. It accepts the caller id as "username" in no condition, I
have even tried to swith both entries with no success.
It seems like the PJSIP client is not correctly configured if an "Auth. name"
is supplied.
I also tested again with Siphon 2.3rc4. There it showed "connected", but it
crashed if I call (the known error under iOS 4.2.1). But sometimes it showed
the status "forbidded", maybe my provider didn't liked my tests. But with the
new version I have made many tests and it said never "Available".
The only thing that worked as I want it is calling direct SIP addresses, there
the called persion receives the caller ID I have put in the username.
Please review your fix Samuel.
Original comment by icke2002...@gmail.com
on 12 Mar 2011 at 3:07
Could you post here or send me, the log files fo Siphon 3.9.3 and Siphon 2.3rc4
?
Original comment by samuelv0...@gmail.com
on 12 Mar 2011 at 5:41
I released a new version 3.9.4, I hope it fixes this issue.
Could you confirm ? If not, could you send me the log files, pls?
Original comment by samuelv0...@gmail.com
on 12 Mar 2011 at 11:41
No this method still does not work for me. I have attached the requested logs.
For producing the logs I have set the maximum detail level, started the
application and tried to make a call (with crash in 2.3rc4).
I have replaced my personal account details with the following texts:
Name: user
Username: 02012345678
Auth. name: account
I hope you can figure out the difference. At first glance I have not really
seen the problem.
Original comment by icke2002...@gmail.com
on 13 Mar 2011 at 5:21
Attachments:
I meant this version (3.9.4) does not fix my problem.
Original comment by icke2002...@gmail.com
on 13 Mar 2011 at 5:22
Original comment by samuelv0...@gmail.com
on 13 Mar 2011 at 9:07
Could you try to clear the name field ?
Original comment by samuelv0...@gmail.com
on 13 Mar 2011 at 9:28
I released a new version 3.9.5.
Now the STUN server is used.
Original comment by samuelv0...@gmail.com
on 13 Mar 2011 at 11:13
I have tried clearing the name field with version 3.9.4 with the same result,
as I saw there was a difference between the two logs. I can try it again with
your new version. If it does not work I post another log file without setting
the name field.
But I can say there was again a difference between 2.3rc4 and 3.9.4 without
name, the From/To and some of the Contact fields in the header had no
enclosing <>.
Original comment by icke2002...@gmail.com
on 14 Mar 2011 at 8:35
I have tested version 3.9.5 without setting the Name field, with the same
result as before. But in the logs it looks like that there are now <> in the
From/To/Contact fields, so I don't know whats the difference now. So I think
you have to exactly match the logs. I hope the problem does not lay in the
authentication itself.
Original comment by icke2002...@gmail.com
on 14 Mar 2011 at 6:18
Attachments:
With Siphon 2.3, you are defined stun setting. But with Siphon 3.9.x you didn't
define this setting. Could you try to define it ?
Original comment by samuelv0...@gmail.com
on 14 Mar 2011 at 8:31
With STUN defined it still does not work, see attached log file.
Original comment by icke2002...@gmail.com
on 15 Mar 2011 at 6:05
Attachments:
I created a poivy account. And the connection works fine with
username/password/server only. If I define authentication name settings with
username value, everything works fine too.
I think you don't need to define authentication name field.
Original comment by samuelv0...@gmail.com
on 15 Mar 2011 at 10:49
Yes, thats right, but I have registered my landline number, so that it is
displayed on the telephone of the called person. If I use only the username, no
numer is transmitted, so I will be displayed as unknown.
It would be really nice if this works.
For testing this feature with poivy, you need the poivy software. Do the
following steps after signing in:
- File -> Your Personal Profile
- Under Phonenumbers choose i.e. home on the left side
- enter your full international telephonenumber i.e. +492012345678
- Click "Verify now!"
- Take the call and follow the instructions
- use the local telephone numer i.e. 02012345678 as username and the account
name as auth. name
You can test this for example with X-Lite
(http://www.counterpath.com/x-lite.html).
If you do not have windows, I don't know if there is an other way to register
an outgoing number.
Original comment by icke2002...@gmail.com
on 19 Mar 2011 at 1:45
[deleted comment]
I have analyzed the digest authentication response:
- In the log of Sipon 2.3rc4 I could successfully calculate the response by
myself
- In the log of Sipon 3.9.5 I have come to a different result than the
application => here is the error
I have tried to calculate the same result as Sipon 3.9.5 but failed doing that.
Also I used the username as digest-username, with a different result than Sipon
3.9.5, so I don't know what Sipon 3.9.5 is doing wrong. It is importent to use
the Auth. name as digest-username.
Informations that I used to calculate the digest response by hand:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digest_access_authentication
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3261.txt
Original comment by icke2002...@gmail.com
on 19 Mar 2011 at 5:01
I released a 3.9.6 version. It should fixed this issue. Could you confirm ?
Original comment by samuelv0...@gmail.com
on 20 Mar 2011 at 9:08
Now it works, thanks for your patience!
Original comment by icke2002...@gmail.com
on 21 Mar 2011 at 7:06
you are welcome and thanks for your help.
Original comment by samuelv0...@gmail.com
on 21 Mar 2011 at 7:24
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
icke2002...@gmail.com
on 5 Mar 2011 at 6:29