[Spce-user] SIP-Response INJECTION
Jon Bonilla (Manwe)
jbonilla at sipwise.com
Wed Nov 21 08:01:37 EST 2012
El Wed, 21 Nov 2012 13:08:44 +0100
"Klaus Peter v. Friedeburg" <friedeburg at aco.de> escribió:
> Hi Jon,
> 1. in sems we have disabled whitelisting for headers at all.
> 2. I have tested to change the IP Port for the peering-servers to 5070 but
> it don't change anything in this behavior. On the side of BT our peer is
> only configured using UDP.
Good. You'll see it when they send incoming calls.
>3. Our session timers for the Gateway BT are
> disabled, because it seems to me that only one side should control the
If you don't enable session timers for the gw, no session timers will be used
as the system won't announce the support for them. You need to enable them and
both servers will negotiate who's the refresher. Actually, the version of sems
we'll release this week has a fix to the session timer refresher negotiation
problem we found in our last bt interconnection.
> An Question of the planning update of seems: It is possible to update only
> sems? Because we have made some customizations in OSS, www-admin and www-csc,
> so that is difficult to update the hole system.
apt-get install ngcp-sems
This btw is not related to your PRACK problems. So we'll need to disable them
somehow in the system. Anyways, the PRACK usage when peering against bt is
quite absurd because they will send you about 4 provisional responses and you
need to PRACK all of them. That's a nightmare for ngrep debugging :)
Can't you just disable 100rel support in the CPEs?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Spce-user