I have the following CUCM setup:
• CUCM Publisher - 10.192.33.68
• CUCM Primary Subscriber: 10.192.33.60
• CUCM Secondary Subscriber: 10.192.41.60
• CUCM Tertiary Subscriber: 10.192.33.61
• Third-Party SIP Phone (IP Trade T4): 10.192.33.20
I can confirm the network is ok as this has been tested thoroughly.
In normal operating circumstances, the SIP Phone registers with 10.192.33.60. When this fails the SIP Phone registers with 10.192.41.60. However, when 10.192.33.60 comes back online, the SIP phones fails to re-register with CUCM.
See attached Wireshark trace monitoring the above.From my understanding:
• You can see that 10.192.33.20 subscribes to 10.192.33.60 (No. 20 - Status: 200 OK (1 binding).
• When I disconnect 10.192.33.60, you can see the three way TCP handshake fails to 10.192.33.60 (IDs 75-80). 10.192.33.20 then subscribes to 10.192.41.60 (No. 91 - Status: 200 OK (1 binding).
• When I reconnect 10.192.33.60 you can see 10.192.33.20 makes multiple attempts to subscribe to 10.192.33.60, re-register to the 10.192.41.60 and also 10.192.33.61 but it isn't successful (IDs 141, 151, 160, 164, 168, 172, 176, 180 - Status 200 OK (0 bindings).
• On one occasion it seems the SIP request to 10.192.33.60 was '406 Not Acceptable' (No. 148).
• Also there is a 'REFER' SIP message to 10.192.33.60 (No. 144)
Could the Wireshark trace be analysed and advise why the re-registration is failing please?
Thanks in advance!
Thanks for your reply.
I should've provided a bit more context of the testing I performed and therefore the start and end of the Wireshark trace. The process is as follows:
This I think is represented between 1-20 in the Wireshark trace
This I think is represented between 66-80 in the Wireshark trace
This I think is represented between 81-91 in the Wireshark trace
This I think happens at about the time of 120 in the Wireshark trace
This I think is represented between 121-185 in the Wireshark trace
The SIP digest credentials is correct as the SIP phone wouldn't successfully register in the first place. Is there anything from 121-185 that is suggesting there is something not correct as per the original registration?