Re: [Sip-implementors] 407 Authentication failure

2010-01-21 Thread Iñaki Baz Castillo
El Jueves, 21 de Enero de 2010, Josep Benavent escribió: > OK, thank you Iñaki; it was too obvious to be seen... > > Now I replaced the Authorization header by Proxy-Authorization and the > behaviour is the same; I still receive again a 407 after each INVITE > petition. > > Do I need to send a cn

Re: [Sip-implementors] 407 Authentication failure

2010-01-21 Thread Josep Benavent
OK, thank you Iñaki; it was too obvious to be seen... Now I replaced the Authorization header by Proxy-Authorization and the behaviour is the same; I still receive again a 407 after each INVITE petition. Do I need to send a cnoune value ?? I have some captured traffic of a working dialog from Xli

Re: [Sip-implementors] 407 Authentication failure

2010-01-18 Thread Iñaki Baz Castillo
El Lunes, 18 de Enero de 2010, Josep Benavent escribió: > OK, I changed the branch in each petition. I detail the dialogue following: The header for a request after a 407 is "Proxy-Authorization" rather than "Authorization" (which is used for 401 and reply header "Authenticate"). -- Iñaki Baz

Re: [Sip-implementors] 407 Authentication failure

2010-01-18 Thread Iñaki Baz Castillo
El Lunes, 18 de Enero de 2010, Josep Benavent escribió: > I'm revising again the transmission and yes, I always use the same > branch in all the process. Do I need to use a new branch when I try to > do an INVITE?? Of course, if not the server would treat it as a request retransmission and would

Re: [Sip-implementors] 407 Authentication failure

2010-01-18 Thread Josep Benavent
OK, I changed the branch in each petition. I detail the dialogue following: REGISTER sip:josep.benav...@i2cat.net SIP/2.0 Call-ID: 595b4d583e658ed73bd9137506aac...@192.168.48.127 CSeq: 0 REGISTER From: ;tag=0 To: Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.48.127:12345;branch=z9hG4bKd410fd4f1cea6f2a602729a26

Re: [Sip-implementors] 407 Authentication failure

2010-01-18 Thread Josep Benavent
I'm revising again the transmission and yes, I always use the same branch in all the process. Do I need to use a new branch when I try to do an INVITE?? Thank you all for your attention! Josep Benavent 2010/1/15 Iñaki Baz Castillo : > El Viernes, 15 de Enero de 2010, Michael Hirschbichler es

Re: [Sip-implementors] 407 Authentication failure

2010-01-15 Thread Iñaki Baz Castillo
El Viernes, 15 de Enero de 2010, Michael Hirschbichler escribió: > In my opinion, the 407ers are retransmissions. Check with wireshark, if > these responses are using e.g. the CSeq number of the first or the > second invite-request. > Maybe your ACK-request is not correct? Also make sure that you

Re: [Sip-implementors] 407 Authentication failure

2010-01-15 Thread Michael Hirschbichler
In my opinion, the 407ers are retransmissions. Check with wireshark, if these responses are using e.g. the CSeq number of the first or the second invite-request. Maybe your ACK-request is not correct? hth br Michael Josep Benavent wrote: > Hello, > > I'm developing a UA using JAIN-SIP that conne

Re: [Sip-implementors] 407 Authentication failure

2010-01-14 Thread Alok 2 Tiwari
[Sip-implementors] 407 Authentication failure Hello, I'm developing a UA using JAIN-SIP that connect to Asterisk server and I can't complete an INVITE process correctly. The dialogue I implemented is: 1. Send register 2. Received a trying and a 401 Unauthorized 3. I send a regi

[Sip-implementors] 407 Authentication failure

2010-01-14 Thread Josep Benavent
Hello, I'm developing a UA using JAIN-SIP that connect to Asterisk server and I can't complete an INVITE process correctly. The dialogue I implemented is: 1. Send register 2. Received a trying and a 401 Unauthorized 3. I send a register again with the authorization header (with the nonce and the