[asterisk-users] SIP account registration fails after upgrade to 1.8

[Hans Witvliet]

-----Original Message-----
From: Jaap Winius <jwinius at umrk.nl>
Reply-to: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
<asterisk-users at lists.digium.com>
To: asterisk-users at lists.digium.com
Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] SIP account registration fails after
upgrade to 1.8
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 02:46:43 +0000 (UTC)

On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 16:35:16 +0000, Jaap Winius wrote:

> Hopefully, my ISP will see fit to squash this bug ASAP.

Well, I got my answer from them quickly enough: Nope.

Luckily, somebody was kind enough to suggest a workaround. Unfortunately, 
it involves, downloading the source code and making a few changes to it 
to prevent Asterisk from adding '@<IPaddress>' to the end of the Call-ID 
string. Nevertheless, it's easy enough to do. The idea is to look for 
this string that appears twice in ./channels/chan_sip.c:

  ast_string_field_build(pvt, callid, "%s@%s",
      generate_random_string(buf, sizeof(buf)), host);

And to change it to:

  ast_string_field_build(pvt, callid, "%s",
      generate_random_string(buf, sizeof(buf)));

Now my Call-IDs look like this:

   Call-ID: 63935a8d2144d4f1309024fd7612f608

Instead of this:

   Call-ID: 4991f57656d159925b296e5b3b06496b@[2001:888:abcd:1::a]

Still, I'd much prefer that my ISP fixed the problem instead, because now 
every time a security update becomes available for Asterisk, I'm going to 
have to download the source code, make the same changes, recompile it and 
install it all over again and again. Ho hum.

Of course, an even better solution would be if Asterisk had a variable 
with which to alter the Call-ID string format so that I could omit the IP 
address. :-)

Cheers,

Jaap

-----Original Message-----

Hi Jaap,

just wondering, might this perhaps be an IPv6 quirk?
By altering '@<IPaddress>'  you got rid of : '@[2001:888:abcd:1::a]'
Does the dame happen with V4-only?

I presume you didn't activate V6 at your end lately?
Other idea (perhaps pointless), you got the numeric address, would the
same issue still exists if '2001:888:abcd:1::a' could be translater back
into a dns-name? (include it in your /etc/hosts ?)

Sometimes the '[]' cause some side-effects (specially if some regex are
used unseen)


Groet, hw