Not sure why nobody has patched it but this has been around since 3.10.x. I don't see a tracker item on it so that would be the place to start. http://track.sipfoundry.org
This is a long-known issue with the Aastra config template. Patches are of course welcome. Mike On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 7:13 AM, Mark Dutton <repl...@datamerge.com.au>wrote: > > > I did say exactly what I did to make it work in an earlier > post. The problem was that the SipX provisioning software > was not carrying the port = 0 variable in the device group > server settings for registrar and proxy. Even though the > device group profile has 0, the device profile still puts in > 5060 as a default. You have to go to each device > individually and override the setting with 0. This then > causes the handset to use the default port of 5060, but not > to specify it in the URI. This then made the MWI server > happy to auth it. > > And I can tell you with all certainty that Zultys does not > use a special firmware. I have been a Zultys beta tester for > 5 years working with the dev guys. Aastra has a provisioning > system where it goes to the Internet on first boot (after > factory default) and looks up the mac address a database > maintained by Aastra. Aastra then sends back certain > identity information, such as the correct splash screen > bitmap and agent string, etc. > > The actual firmware is direct from Aastra and is unmodified > (in the Zultys case). > > What got my back up was that in my first post I asked what > information to gather to send to the SipX forum and instead > I was told to send a SIP log to Aastra. Believe me they > would have absolutely no interest in even replying. > > I am new to SipX, but not to IP tel. I am not sure which > logs give me what sort of information (apart from > sipXproxy.log). I have been using sipx-trace and sipviewer > (when necessary) to do my investigations to date. Where I > came unstuck with this was that I did not know why I was > getting an auth error. > > As it turned out, it was because the phone was subscribing > with the port in the URI. From Joegen's post (the RFC > excerpt), I could see that the port designator is a key part > of a URI match and this is what SipX didn't like. However, > if SipX was being strict, it should not have allowed the > REGISTER, or INVITE methods either as these too were > appending the port to the URI. > > One has to be pragmatic with SIP. There are so many > "viewpoints" on what is legal. When it comes to Aastra, a > large, isolationist company, or SipX, an open community, it > is going to be the latter that is more likely to accomodate > change than the former. Just the way of the world. > -- > Regards > > Mark Dutton > > _______________________________________________ > sipx-users mailing list > sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org > List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/ > -- Michael Picher, Director of Technical Services eZuce, Inc. 300 Brickstone Square**** Suite 201**** Andover, MA. 01810 O.978-296-1005 X2015 M.207-956-0262 @mpicher <http://twitter.com/mpicher> linkedin <http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=35504760&trk=tab_pro> www.ezuce.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ There are 10 kinds of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
_______________________________________________ sipx-users mailing list sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/
