ANNOUNCEMENT - The community will be down for maintenace this Thursday August 13 from 12:00 AM PT to 02:00 AM PT. As a precaution save your work.
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
cancel
240
Views
0
Helpful
5
Replies
Highlighted

CUCM numeric/sip order of opereration | Anonymous call

Hello everyone!

I stepped into this one recently and I'm puzzled on the fix and I would like to understand it better.

 

Facts:

- Call blocking based on calling party was implemented on CUCM using the “Route Next Hop By Calling Party” trick [1][2].

- Anonymous SIP Calls were being blocked by the previous change with 404 Not Found below is an example of the original INVITE.

 

 

016761: May 12 16:47:22.002: //-1/xxxxxxxxxxxx/SIP/Msg/ccsipDisplayMsg:
Received: 
INVITE sip:5130004444@199.9.8.7:5060 SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 67.1.2.3:5100;branch=z9hG4bKnkru8600a09ucbj79ql0.1
From: "Anonymous"<sip:anonymous@anonymous.invalid>;tag=1537286278-1589323641991-
To: "5130004444 5130004444"<sip:5130004444@voip.sip.com;user=phone>
Call-ID: BW1647219911205201184354441@10.10.10.10
CSeq: 92871236 INVITE
Contact: <sip:anonymous@67.1.2.3:5100;transport=udp>
Allow: ACK,BYE,CANCEL,INFO,INVITE,OPTIONS,PRACK,REFER,NOTIFY,UPDATE
Recv-Info: x-broadworks-client-session-info
Accept: application/btbc-session-info,application/media_control+xml,application/sdp,multipart/mixed
Max-Forwards: 69
Content-Type: application/sdp
Content-Disposition: session;handling=required
Content-Length: 265

 

The problem seems to be that -and I quote- "Cisco Unified Communications Manager digit analysis engine is not designed to match on non-numeric strings", which is understandable and the string "anonymous" it is obviously NOT numeric.

I read multiple sites about similar problems and all of them suggested a SIP normalization on the FROM header [3][4][5][6] which is what I ended up doing on the CUBE, considering most common variations.

 

voice class sip-profiles 1
 request ANY sip-header From modify "<sip:Anonymous@" "<sip:00000000000@" 
 request ANY sip-header From modify "<sip:Restricted@" "<sip:00000000000@" 
 request ANY sip-header From modify "<sip:Unavailable@" "<sip:00000000000@" 
 request ANY sip-header From modify "<sip:anonymous@" "<sip:00000000000@" 
 request ANY sip-header From modify "<sip:restricted@" "<sip:00000000000@" 
 request ANY sip-header From modify "<sip:unavailable@" "<sip:00000000000@" 

 

But it did NOT work, anonymous calls where still being blocked, although I clearly saw on the call leg going to CUCM the modification being applied correctly.

 

016764: May 12 16:47:22.006: //3783693/603D0713A3E2/SIP/Msg/ccsipDisplayMsg:
Sent: 
INVITE sip:5130004444@10.10.10.10:5060 SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 10.10.10.20:5060;branch=z9hG4bK6133D11CB6
From: <sip:00000000000@anonymous.invalid>;tag=3AD06B02-3E6 ! already modified by SIP normalization. 
To: <sip:5130004444@10.10.10.10>
Date: Tue, 12 May 2020 22:47:22 GMT
Call-ID: 603D7BE5-93D911EA-A3E8EAF3-B61C7023@voip.sip.com
Supported: rel100,timer,resource-priority,replaces,sdp-anat
Min-SE:  1800
Cisco-Guid: 1614612243-2480476650-2749557491-3055317027
User-Agent: Cisco-SIPGateway/IOS-16.6.7
Allow: INVITE, OPTIONS, BYE, CANCEL, ACK, PRACK, UPDATE, REFER, SUBSCRIBE, NOTIFY, INFO, REGISTER
CSeq: 101 INVITE
Timestamp: 1589323642
Contact: <sip:anonymous@10.10.10.20:5060>
Expires: 180
Allow-Events: kpml, telephone-event
Max-Forwards: 68
P-Preferred-Identity: "Anonymous" <sip:anonymous@anonymous.invalid>
Privacy: id
Session-ID: ba7740aa3613515689bb2249c650dd27;remote=00000000000000000000000000000000
Session-Expires:  1800
Content-Type: application/sdp
Content-Disposition: session;handling=required
Content-Length: 252

I noticed that the SIP headers Contact and P-Preferred-Identity contained sip:anonymous string also and it was not until I added those headers to the SIP normalization that the call worked.

 

voice class sip-profiles 1
 request ANY sip-header From modify "<sip:Anonymous@" "<sip:00000000000@" 
 request ANY sip-header From modify "<sip:Restricted@" "<sip:00000000000@" 
 request ANY sip-header From modify "<sip:Unavailable@" "<sip:00000000000@" 
 request ANY sip-header From modify "<sip:anonymous@" "<sip:00000000000@" 
 request ANY sip-header From modify "<sip:restricted@" "<sip:00000000000@" 
 request ANY sip-header From modify "<sip:unavailable@" "<sip:00000000000@" 
!
 request ANY sip-header Contact modify "<sip:Anonymous@" "<sip:00000000000@" 
 request ANY sip-header Contact modify "<sip:Restricted@" "<sip:00000000000@" 
 request ANY sip-header Contact modify "<sip:Unavailable@" "<sip:00000000000@" 
 request ANY sip-header Contact modify "<sip:anonymous@" "<sip:00000000000@" 
 request ANY sip-header Contact modify "<sip:restricted@" "<sip:00000000000@" 
 request ANY sip-header Contact modify "<sip:unavailable@" "<sip:00000000000@" 
!
 request ANY sip-header P-Preferred-Identity modify "<sip:Anonymous@" "<sip:00000000000@" 
 request ANY sip-header P-Preferred-Identity modify "<sip:Restricted@" "<sip:00000000000@" 
 request ANY sip-header P-Preferred-Identity modify "<sip:Unavailable@" "<sip:00000000000@" 
 request ANY sip-header P-Preferred-Identity modify "<sip:anonymous@" "<sip:00000000000@" 
 request ANY sip-header P-Preferred-Identity modify "<sip:restricted@" "<sip:00000000000@" 
 request ANY sip-header P-Preferred-Identity modify "<sip:unavailable@" "<sip:00000000000@" 
!

But why? It still doesn't makes sense to me. All the SIP dialing documentation I have read [7] online and books do not mentioned those fields for routing decisions and only FROM should matter, right? I just do not understand why I it started working after what I did.

 

Any ideas?

Thanks for reading.

Everyone's tags (4)
5 REPLIES 5
Highlighted

Re: CUCM numeric/sip order of opereration | Anonymous call

Have a look at this document, https://community.cisco.com/t5/collaboration-voice-and-video/blocking-calls-based-on-calling-party-id/ta-p/3113978

To handle calls with no caller id you should use a LUA script in CUCM tied to the SIP trunk for the voice gateway. Likely your method also works as well, but now you have another option to use if needed.

Please rate all useful posts
Highlighted

Re: CUCM numeric/sip order of opereration | Anonymous call

Hi Roger!

Yeah, I saw that earlier, and it is doing pretty much the same thing as what I'm accomplishing with the sip-profile on the CUBE. But my questions is not how to do it "fix it" on CUCM, but rather:

Why the call didn't work after I changed the FROM header? Why am I forced to changed the Contact and P-Preferred-Identity headers, why do they matter?

 

Thanks!

Rolando A. Valenzuela.

Highlighted

Re: CUCM numeric/sip order of opereration | Anonymous call

I can’t answer your question, but I do believe that the LUA script in the post also modifies this if I’m not wrong.

Please rate all useful posts
Highlighted

Re: CUCM numeric/sip order of opereration | Anonymous call

Hi Robert, yes the LUA script does normalization also. I just cannot find documentation of why the contact field (my personal assumption) is considered for routing.

Multiple sites mentioned it as a required field for future requests [1][2] but I wonder why CUCM checks that for single invite events.

Highlighted

Re: CUCM numeric/sip order of opereration | Anonymous call

The post by Dan Keller that I referenced refer to these fields also for the LUA script and CM call routing process.

Please rate all useful posts