- VoiceOps - lists.voiceops.org

Malformed ACKs/sequential request lines
by abalashov＠evaristesys.com July 29, 2010

July 29, 2010

[For anyone on Sip-Implementors, sorry for crossposting this here. However, it occurred to me that viewed in a certain light, this could be seen as more of an operational issue than a theoretical one, and I wonder if any of you have encountered it too.] Hi everyone, I am faced with what strikes me as a genuine mystery. In the last few days, I have encountered several completely unrelated commercial SIP UAC implementations that all exhibit the same erroneous behaviour. This behaviour, while certainly incorrect as far as I can tell, is consistent across three or four completely unrelated stacks, leading me to wonder what I am missing. The scenario is that UAC A places call to UAS B through stateful proxy P: A ---> P ---> B P inserts Record-Route header on the initial INVITE in order to stay in the loop on sequential requests. Nothing eccentric in that inherently. When final 200 OK response to the initial INVITE transaction is relayed from P back to A, it contains a normal Contact URI which should be used as the remote target URI for sequential requests (absent any requests that would refresh it): Contact: <sip:xxx at a.b.c.d:5060> It also contains a Record-Route header which has been copied into the reply by B, of course, which looks something like this: Record-Route: <sip:ip.of.proxy.p;lr;param1=blah1;param2=blah2> But bizarrely, the end-to-end ACK sent by A to this 2xx response has a request line formed not from the Contact in the 2xx reply, but from the content of the Record-Route header: ACK sip:ip.of.proxy.p;lr;param1=blah1;param2=blah2 SIP/2.0 Naturally, the proxy is quite bewildered and does not propogate this. 3261 scripture seems quite clear--at least, to me--on why this would be wrong. 12.2.1.1 ("Generating the [in-dialog] Request") says: If the route set is not empty, and the first URI in the route set contains the lr parameter (see Section 19.1.1), the UAC MUST place the remote target URI into the Request-URI and MUST include a Route header field containing the route set values in order, including all parameters. Other parts of the spec make quite clear that this kind of ACK is an in-dialog request, and that the Contact in the 2xx response establishes the "remote target URI" aforementioned. In other words, pretty commonsensical stuff. I think anyone can agree the request line of the ACK should be: ACK sip:xxx at a.b.c.d:5060 SIP/2.0 However, the fact that I have encountered this in completely unrelated situations with an improbable frequency leads me to believe that there must be some element of this I am failing to grasp. Is it some sort of legacy behaviour and/or RFC 2543 backward compatibility mode that is causing this, or perhaps something else? Thanks, -- Alex Balashov - Principal Evariste Systems LLC 1170 Peachtree Street 12th Floor, Suite 1200 Atlanta, GA 30309 Tel: +1-678-954-0670 Fax: +1-404-961-1892 Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/

1 1

Passing non-DID/non-BTN CID info on Verizon
by robert.dawson＠mindshift.com July 27, 2010

July 27, 2010

Has anyone been successful in getting Verizon to allow them to spoof CID? We have a customer with around 30 sites in NY - the smaller sites all have POTS lines and failover to a larger regional site with PRI. We are interested in being able to pass the correct CID for the smaller sites when this happens but Verizon is saying it just can't be done. Anyone doing it currently? Thanks, Rob

4 7

NPA 710 GETS NS/EP
by David_Hiers＠adp.com July 23, 2010

July 23, 2010

Hi Group, Is NPA 710 still the federal Government Emergency Telephone Service (GETS) NPA for the National Security / Emergency Preparedness (NS/EP) program? Either someone is misdialing, or pizza hut is calling back to confirm Jack Bauer's order... I figure that something that big couldn't get reassigned without me noticing something in some planning letter, but those GETS folks are pretty tricky :) Thanks, David Hiers CCIE (R/S, V), CISSP ADP Dealer Services 2525 SW 1st Ave. Suite 300W Portland, OR 97201 o: 503-205-4467 f: 503-402-3277 This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If the reader of the message is not the intended recipient or an authorized representative of the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any attachments from your system.

3 2

Tariff puzzle
by clecny＠gmail.com July 22, 2010

July 22, 2010

Hi Tim, Thanks for your answer, but that raises another question, Why most of the CLEC FCC ( interstate) tariffs include Tandem switching charges? Since most CLECs do not own any Tandem it does not make sense to have these rates included in Tariffs. Also, Will IXC receive two(partial) bills for same call? I am new to this but my telecom attorney told me she has never seen partial bill ( just tandem switching charges ) from a ILEC. I see arguments from both side..still confused :) Regards, Naush. On 7/22/2010 6:04 PM, Tim Jackson wrote: > The ILEC would bill for Tandem Switching to the IXC... > > Usually you see 3 elements, Tandem Switching, Tandem Switching - > Facility (per mou per mile), Tandem Switching - Termination... Some > tariffs combine this, some don't.. Depends on the ILEC's tariff.. > > > -- > Tim > > On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 4:06 PM, CLEC NY <clecny at gmail.com > <mailto:clecny at gmail.com>> wrote: > > Hi, > > Pardon me if this is really a dumb question. > > I need to know in following scenario, when call is coming from IXC > location -> CLEC end user ( replace Company with CLEC in picture. > ) Who send bills for "Tandem switching charges" to IXC? CLEC or > ILEC? In this case Tandem switch is owned by ILEC. > > Under switched access servies ,I know CLEC will charge for Common > Trunk Port ( CTP) , Local switching , Local Trunk trasport / > facility , Tandem transport, but Tandem switching is questionable. > > > << picture removed >> > > Sorry about crude picture... > > Thanks & Regards, > Naush. > > > _______________________________________________ > VoiceOps mailing list > VoiceOps at voiceops.org <mailto:VoiceOps at voiceops.org> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops > >

1 0

Tariff puzzle
by clecny＠gmail.com July 22, 2010

July 22, 2010

Hi, Pardon me if this is really a dumb question. I need to know in following scenario, when call is coming from IXC location -> CLEC end user ( replace Company with CLEC in picture. ) Who send bills for "Tandem switching charges" to IXC? CLEC or ILEC? In this case Tandem switch is owned by ILEC. Under switched access servies ,I know CLEC will charge for Common Trunk Port ( CTP) , Local switching , Local Trunk trasport / facility , Tandem transport, but Tandem switching is questionable. Sorry about crude picture... Thanks & Regards, Naush.

2 1

Contract Development for VOICE PORTAL with Text to Speech
by alramir2020＠gmail.com July 22, 2010

July 22, 2010

Any recommendation for contract developemnt to integrate TTS and ASR into a Call Blaster under Asterisk Al

1 0

Contract development referral
by bethjohnson5060＠gmail.com July 21, 2010

July 21, 2010

Can anyone refer a good contract development company? We are interested in developing call control apps using the best of xsi, ccxml, vxml, etc, and are looking for an experienced development team. -B

4 3

VZN outages?
by David_Hiers＠adp.com July 19, 2010

July 19, 2010

Anyone having trouble with Verizon this morning? We're seeing a few scattered completion issues. Thanks, David Hiers CCIE (R/S, V), CISSP ADP Dealer Services 2525 SW 1st Ave. Suite 300W Portland, OR 97201 o: 503-205-4467 f: 503-402-3277 This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If the reader of the message is not the intended recipient or an authorized representative of the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any attachments from your system.

1 0

Verizon
by rruiz＠hbcorporate.com July 15, 2010

July 15, 2010

Hello, I'm new to this list but, I'd like to know if anyone has a contact number for a Verizon/MCI Metro NOC in MS? We've identified a Verizon/MCI Metro number in MS that's call forwarded to one of our customer's toll free. Our end user is receiving multiple calls from MS residents who are calling the Verizon/MCI Metro number and are mistaking like terminated on our clients toll free. I'd like to speak with a switch tech to undo the forwarding. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, Rafael Ruiz Hunt Telecom

2 1

Voxeo
by David_Hiers＠adp.com July 15, 2010

July 15, 2010

Hi, Is anyone running Voxeo? David Hiers CCIE (R/S, V), CISSP ADP Dealer Services 2525 SW 1st Ave. Suite 300W Portland, OR 97201 o: 503-205-4467 f: 503-402-3277 This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If the reader of the message is not the intended recipient or an authorized representative of the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any attachments from your system.

2 1