OCMS SIP Proxy (stateful/stateless) support?

Hi all,
i wonder if someone can confirm that is is possible to implement both stateless and stateful SIP proxies (as per section 16 of rfc3261), and building applications on them using the OCMS environment? I know it contains a combined Proxy/registrar example servlet, but i am unsure if we would be restricted to that.
Also is there anyway to modify the following headers in a SIP proxy implementation on the OCMS? : From, To, Call-ID, CSeq, Via, Route ( i think pushRoute is currently modifiable ), Record-Route
Many thanks

Hi Christer
Thanks for getting back to me. Yes, i have looked into this a bit more and i do see that the OCMS supports JSR 116, which does support stateless and stateful SIP proxies, as you said. This should be enough for us to start with.
We are currently looking at implementing a type of P-CSCF in the 3GPP IMS model. We have two other questions in this area
1) is it possible for an OCMS proxy to insert/remove an additional SIP header - something like the P-Media-Authorization header (SIP RFC 3313) ?
2) can you confirm that any application built on a OCMS SIP proxy can also receive/modify the SDP body?
From an initial inspection I think that 2 may be possible but am unsure about point 1.
Best regards,
Cathal

Similar Messages

PAP2T - how to setup SIP proxy and codec on PAP2T

Hello
How to setup SIP Proxy server IP addres and codec settings on PAP2T ?

Your question here appears related to or a continuation of this previous question — is this the case?
Based on the previous posting, whatever information you're receiving from the vendor support folks appears rather garbled or confused, particularly based on that "The vendor mentioned that we need to route the DNS and get it working (forwarded) on port 80 and I'd tend to avoid them." comment over there.
I'd ask the vendor for documentation and details (as on its face, a requirement for this proxy seems, well, somewhat questionable), but yes, you're probably in the Apache config files here, and probably using overrides and .htaccess if the site is low-volume, as that'll keep the changes isolated for testing.
Out of curiousity, is this proxy project part of an attempt to get this package to accessible, but without the vendor actually having the package running on port 80? (Got a pointer to the package? We can check the docs, and see if we can translate the installation requirements into something useful on OS X Server.)
Are you running 10.5 or 10.6? Both are pretty old releases.

CVP: using the Gatekeeper and the SIP Proxy, why? VXML gateway and the ingress gateway communication?

Hi All;
I am actually keep asking with my self, why to use gatekeeper or SIP proxy when deploying the CVP solution, why not to use the Call Manager? Is it because that the concept built on SIP and H323 so call manager can not handle these kind of operations as call manager is supporting MGCP?
From the other side, what kind of trunk or protocol of communication method is used between the ingress gateway and the VXML browser?
Any advise?
Regards
Bilal

The main reason is not all who deployed ISN/CVP in the past use Call Manager as the PBX.
CVP is a powerful solution that covers many deployment scenarios. Its ability to integrate with legacy switches has been very important in the past, and although as we move forward, these types of deployments will probably become fewer, the independence of CVP on Call Manager remains a cornerstone of the design.
I'm glad it was built that way. Look at some of the other deployment models (like Call Director) in the CVP Guide.
It's not because Call Manager supports MGCP - you don't need to have any MGCP gateways in your Call Manager deployment. You could have all H.323 gateways and manage the dial plan on the gateways with a gatekeeper. Or use SIP.
The ingress gateway does not talk to the VXML server - the VXML gateway does.
In a branch office design, these are one and the same; but that's not the fundamental architecture. The IOS on the VXML gateway runs a voice browser (I guess you could call this a VXML browser). It uses HTTP to send and receive information (VXML documents) from the VXML server - whether this be the CVP Call Server or an external VXML server (like what was brought in-house with the Audium acqusition - the Cisco CVP VXML Server).
Regards,
Geoff

Sip Proxy Server

do somebody know if there is a way to get a demo/test license key for SPS?
I would like to test it before buy it ( it's not so inexpensive )

1. The calls supported on Cisco Sip Proxy Server is upto 150 cps. The call rate can exceed 150 cps provided the SharedMemorySize is increased according in the sipd.conf file on both the Linux and Solaris.
2. I dont think, the number of phones should be an issue with SIP Proxy server.
3. You can check this in the Software Advisor Tool for which you may require CCO Login.
Software advisor tool
http://www.cisco.com/cgi-bin/Support/CompNav/Index.pl?Introduction=True
4. Not sure.

Questions on Stateful/Stateless/Until Page

Hi Group,
I have a few questions on "Stateful/Stateless/Until Page" of an individual page or
a whole BSP application:
1)If a page has been set as either "Stateful/Stateless/Until Page" what is it impact
on the "page attributes" defined for that page? Does it relate to the Page
attributes? Like if we define a page as "Stateless", is a page attribute for that
page can't not be viewed in the next page? Similarly, what each
"Stateful/Until Page" will be doing??
2)What is the relevance of the checkbox "stateful" at the BSP Application level?
And how it is connected to the earlier one mentioned in the point (1)?
So please kindly put in your valuable ideas.
Thanks & Regards,
Vishnu.

its explained in this weblog
/people/mark.finnern/blog/2003/09/24/bsp-in-depth-confusion-between-stateless-stateful-and-authentication
/people/thomas.jung3/blog/2004/11/09/updated-stateful-bsp-applications-new-state-management-option
Raja

How to set up SIP Proxy for comprehensive CVP and ICM mode

Hello folks,
My name is Eric and I'm facing some issues configuring a environment using the components below:
- CM 8.6
- ICM 8.5
- CVP 8.5
- SIP Proxy 8.5
- VXML GW
First of all, I always implement comprehensive mode environment at my customers (using CM, ICM, CVP, GW), but this is the first time that I'm using SIP Proxy, so the workflow change a lot. I've configure everything fine following Cisco's guides, my VRU PG's are ACTIVE, all the CVP services are UP, and the communications between the components are ok. Now I will explain below the workflow of the call:
1 - When I call to a Route Pattern 9001, for exemple, this RP use a SIP trunk that sends the call to SIP Proxy;
2 - At SIP Proxy Server I've configure a 9001 number in Route Table to send this dn to CVP Call Server;
3 - The CVP route request ICM that picks this 9001 DN and run a script. After this, ICM returns the variables needed (media_server, media_lib, application name) and label to CVP using Send to VRU component;
4 - CVP Call Server send this informations to SIP Proxy;
5 - SIP Proxy sends it to VXML Gateway and I can see this calls reaching the VXML GW;
6 - At VXML GW I've configured the dial-peer to reach my label (1234567890) and to calls the bootstrap service;
The big problem is that the calls becomes mute after being answered, I think the communication between CVP -> SIP Proxy -> VXML GW are missing some steps because if I configure my CVP to work with ICM only (excluding the SIP Proxy Server) the calls works fine following the Local Static Route and goes to available agent or queue.
If I'm using SIP Proxy Server, it's necessary to use Local Static Route or not at CVP? I think not because SIP Proxy will use the Route table to send the informations to the components. Another doubt is about ICM, for ICM is clear because the configuration is the same for use SIP Proxy or not, isn't?
Thank you very much.

Amir,
I'm not using Ingress Gateway, I'm passing from CM Route Pattern to SIP Proxy, using SIP trunk.
Saeed,
- is your media file or the agent call, which one is silent or both.
The media file is not prompted, so the calls becomes mute.
- have you configured the routes for VXML VG in route table.
Yes.
- have you configured the rotues for UCM for agent's extension in route table.
Yes
When I call, I can see it reaching the VXML gateway, but doesn't prompt the audio and neither send the call to agent. The agent becomes reserved but the call are not delivered.

VPN Client: proxy identities not supported

Phase 1 is complete since I see this message in the debug output:
*Jan 17 19:41:04.618: ISAKMP:(2029):Input = IKE_MESG_INTERNAL, IKE_PHASE1_COMPLETE
The checking of the IPSec proposal fails because of "proxy identities not supported":
=[ BEGIN debug output ]====================================================================
*Jan 17 19:41:04.634: ISAKMP:(2029):Checking IPSec proposal 4
*Jan 17 19:41:04.634: ISAKMP: transform 1, ESP_AES
*Jan 17 19:41:04.634: ISAKMP: attributes in transform:
*Jan 17 19:41:04.634: ISAKMP: authenticator is HMAC-SHA
*Jan 17 19:41:04.634: ISAKMP: key length is 128
*Jan 17 19:41:04.634: ISAKMP: encaps is 1 (Tunnel)
*Jan 17 19:41:04.634: ISAKMP: SA life type in seconds
*Jan 17 19:41:04.634: ISAKMP: SA life duration (VPI) of 0x0 0x20 0xC4 0x9B
*Jan 17 19:41:04.634: ISAKMP:(2029):atts are acceptable.
*Jan 17 19:41:04.634: ISAKMP:(2029):Checking IPSec proposal 4
*Jan 17 19:41:04.634: ISAKMP:(2029):transform 1, IPPCP LZS
*Jan 17 19:41:04.634: ISAKMP: attributes in transform:
*Jan 17 19:41:04.634: ISAKMP: encaps is 1 (Tunnel)
*Jan 17 19:41:04.634: ISAKMP: SA life type in seconds
*Jan 17 19:41:04.634: ISAKMP: SA life duration (VPI) of 0x0 0x20 0xC4 0x9B
*Jan 17 19:41:04.634: ISAKMP:(2029):atts are acceptable.
*Jan 17 19:41:04.634: IPSEC(validate_proposal_request): proposal part #1
*Jan 17 19:41:04.634: IPSEC(validate_proposal_request): proposal part #1,
(key eng. msg.) INBOUND local= 200.40.164.178, remote= 200.40.164.177,
local_proxy= 0.0.0.0/0.0.0.0/0/0 (type=4),
remote_proxy= 192.168.101.22/255.255.255.255/0/0 (type=1),
protocol= ESP, transform= esp-aes esp-sha-hmac (Tunnel),
lifedur= 0s and 0kb,
spi= 0x0(0), conn_id= 0, keysize= 128, flags= 0x0
*Jan 17 19:41:04.634: IPSEC(validate_proposal_request): proposal part #2
*Jan 17 19:41:04.638: IPSEC(validate_proposal_request): proposal part #2,
(key eng. msg.) INBOUND local= 200.40.164.178, remote= 200.40.164.177,
local_proxy= 0.0.0.0/0.0.0.0/0/0 (type=4),
remote_proxy= 192.168.101.22/255.255.255.255/0/0 (type=1),
protocol= PCP, transform= comp-lzs (Tunnel),
lifedur= 0s and 0kb,
spi= 0x0(0), conn_id= 0, keysize= 0, flags= 0x0
*Jan 17 19:41:04.638: IPSEC(crypto_ipsec_process_proposal): proxy identities not supported
*Jan 17 19:41:04.638: ISAKMP:(2029): IPSec policy invalidated proposal with error 32
=[ END debug output ]======================================================================
I see that "local_proxy= 0.0.0.0/0.0.0.0/0/0", but it should have the IP address of the router internal interface.

Well, finally a coleague found the cause of the problem: I had added a "match address" command to the "crypto dynamic-map" for the RemoteAccess VPN.
The "match address" command must be used only with VPN L2L.

SIP REFER with UCCE and CUPS SIP Proxy

I am running UCCE 8.0.1 with CVP and CUPS as the SIP proxy. I am looking to transfer calls to PSTN and release from CVP to free CVP ports. I am using the rfxxxxxxx method in the ICM script, which seems to work fine from CVP. However the SIP proxy send an Invite to our SBC instead of a REFER. Is there a way to configure SIP Proxy to send the REFER instead of the invite? I would like to release the call from our SBC as well.
The other idea was to insert a custom header in CVP I could then pull out at the SBC and replace with a REFER. Does anyone have any links to documentation on this?
Thanks
TC

how about check "enable send calls to originator" for the refer label routing in CVP? this would bypass proxy.

3rd Party SIP phone to CUCM via SIP Proxy

Hi all,
This is the scenario i'm currently working on :
3rd party SIP phone <--> Internet <--> SIP Proxy <--> LAN <--> CUCM
The SIP proxy basically terminates everything (REGISTER, INVITE, etc), including the RTP stream.
I can register the 3rd party SIP phone to CUCM and in CUCM and i can see SIP Proxy IP Address as the registered address of the phone.
Calls from the 3rd party SIP phone to internal Cisco or internal 3rd party SIP phone and vice versa work like charm.
The only (fatal) problem is i can only register 1 3rd party SIP phone to CUCM via this SIP proxy.
Since this SIP Proxy always use its internal IP Address and port 5060 (TCP) as its source of registration, CUCM sees multiple registrations for multiple extensions (users) come from a single IP and port, and rejects the second registration request.
It seems that CUCM binds a digest user to an IP address and port, therefore cannot accept multiple registrations from a single IP and port.
Can anyone clarify this? Or is there any way around this?
I'm using CUCM 8.6.2 and CUCM 9.X (both do not work).
Regards,
Christian

This is most likely because of the following...
Because third-party SIP phones do not send a MAC address, they must identify themselves by using digest authentication.
The REGISTER message includes the following header:
Authorization: Digest username="xxxxxxxxxx",realm="ccmsipline",nonce="GBauADss2qoWr6k9y3hGGVDAqnLfoLk5",uri="sip:172.18.197.224",algorithm=MD5,response="126c0643a4923359ab59d4f53494552e"
The username, xxxxxxxxxxx, must match an end user that is configured in the End User Configuration window of Cisco Unified CallManager Administration. The administrator configures the SIP third-party phone with the user; for example, swhite, in the Digest User field of Phone Configuration window.
See the following document.
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/voice_ip_comm/cucm/admin/5_1_3/ccmcfg/b09sip3p.html
Also Try this bug CSCef88775

CVP - SIP Server Groups and Redundant SIP Proxy (CUPS)

I am migrating from a CVP 7 + UCCE 7.5 solution which uses srv.xml files on the CVP servers to implement redundancy
from CVP to the SIP Proxies (which are CUPS based).
In the new CVP 8.5 + UCCE 8.5 solution, I am trying to set up equivalent redundancy, which
is now done via Server Groups.
The solution is geographically diverse, with one CVP server + a CUPS server (publisher) at Site1,
and the second CVP + CUPS server (subscriber) at site 2.
Previously (on CVP 7), I was able to configure each CVP server so that its priority was to use the CUPS server at its
"local" site. Hence there were 2 different srv.xml files, one for each CVP server.
To configure this in CVP 8.5, I would need 2 SIP Server groups, to give each CVP a group
configured to prefer the "local" CUPS server. But when I configure a SIP server group(s) pointing to CUPS, I seem to be only able
to get one single Server Group to work. That single Server Group only works if the server group name
matches exactly the Domain Name configured in CUPS. Since CUPS' Domain name is a single cluster wide name,
I can get only one Server Group working, not the two that I need.
So, where am I going wrong?
Regards.

Fairly new to CVP and had a question about how to configure the dialed number patterns so they point to more than 1 CUCM. My environment doesn't have a SIP Proxy or DNS Srv. That said, I tried to create as what was mentioned above - SIP Serve Group with 2 CUCM Subs then have a dialed number pattern point to it. However, when I initiate a call to an ICM script and eventually hit an agent, it flips between ready and reserve. When I change the dialed number pattern to point to a specific CUCM, it works fine. Followed all the aobve recommendations as well. Any idea how to make this work? Hoping I'm just missing something here...

Secure SIP lines are not supported on the CME

Hi,
I was looking for the configuration of Secure SIP lines on the CME and found in the link bellow that "Secure SIP lines are not supported on the Cisco Unified CME mode", only Secure SCCP lines is supported:
http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/cucme/admin/configuration/guide/cmeadm/cmeauth.html
In my opinion, security is an important subject nowadays and SIP is what Cisco is investing more and more ... it's awkward that Secure SIP lines is not supported on the CME.
Does anyone knows if this will be implemented in future versions of CME?
Thanks.

Just to described the answer that I received from Cisco ... there is a roadmap for FY16.
Regards.

Calls to different SIP proxy and nameserver assignments

How is it possible to call to a user that is registered in different sip proxy? I have tried to use cisco 7905G SIP phone. It does not work only placing the number, because the phone assumes that it uses the same proxy. What nameserver assignments should I place to SIP proxy in order to let other proxys to know that it exists?

if proxy members are registered in different SIP proxyserver the lock of the registry database can become a critical point. This is specially true in a big network. But it is possible to call a user in a different SIP proxy

Jain-sip-proxy server does not display in browser

Hi JCP
I have downloaded the codes for JAin-sip-Proxy Server, Jain-sip-applet-phone.my problems are:-
1. I have downloaded all libraries and don't find any error in boiuding the code, but when I deploy using Sailfin it just display Hello World in browser- where else the
Netbeans Ide tells me deployment was successful.
2. When I use Tomcat 6.26 Server, the browser just displays JavaFaces(Welcoming page of jsp framework)
I can't see both the server site and the applet phone. My O.S is Windows 7
(I have followed all instructions in setup including in control panels->Java Plug in)
thanx. Can someone help me implementing this two codes( I downloaded them form NIST JAIN SIP WEB SIT)
Edited by: FihlaTV on Aug 6, 2010 10:54 AM

If I try to look at your XML file directly, I get an error.
http://www.ericaeschmann.com/photos.xml
That is likely the cause. Fix that closing tag issue and check it...

Configure SPA2102 as SIP Phone to SIP Proxy Server

I have a SIP2102 which needs to be configured as SIP phone to a SIP Proxy Server. All calls will stay within the local network. I need to point SPA2102 to my SIP Proxy Server and assign an extension such that it is recognized by the SIP Proxy Server as part of its pool of valid extensions. The documentation is not clear when just trying to set these parameters.

if what you are trying to accomplish is simply register the SPA2102 with your Proxy server then the only thing you need to do is configure a USER ID (this is the extension number you want the SPA to have) and a Proxy (IP address of your SIP server) -- outbound proxy is only needed if your server requires the device to have this..
Both of these parameters can be found under Line 1 tab and these settings should come from your SIP server-- Internet port of the device must be connected to your network
SIP Port is another to consider in case your SIP server is using another port other than 6060..
| isolate! isolate! isolate! |

I Can't run OCMS SipAS - OC4J 10.1.3 from eclipse WTP 1.5

Hello
I Installed OCMS coorectly , and its pluging for eclipse WTP 1.5
I succefuly created in this eclipse a new server OCMS SipAS - OC4J 10.1.3
also , I succefuly created a new SIP servlet project to perform a test
BUT THE PROBLEME THAT WHENE I TRY TO RUN THE SERVER , A TIME OUT BREAK ALL ....
Plz some one can Help me ?
Plz , this is the message witch eclipse throws :
Timeout waiting for OCMS SipAS - OC4J 10.1.3 to start. Server did not start after 240s.
I'm realy blocked !!!

Hi
When you crated the "server" in Eclipse did you specify 5060 as the SIP port and
8888 as the HTTP port?
In that case have you configured OCMS/OC4J to use 5060 and 8888?
The Eclipse plugin only checks if the launched process listens to the ports given when you created the "server" in Eclipse.
Cheers
Lucas

OCMS SIP Proxy (stateful/stateless) support?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for