Thank you for that answer. That is what I have done and it 'quite' =
works. 'Quite' because I have encounter a strange behaviour :<br />=
- OpenSBC behave as a B2BUA with Upper registration for domain 'd',=
it consider 'd' as a trusted domain and add n 'opensbc route&#=
39; declared as [sip:*@d*] sip:<ip of portasip>:5060<br />- my sippho=
ne register to domain 'd' and it is declared to use opens=
bc as proxy : it works. Every REGISTER requests goes though openSBC and sip=
phone get authenticated.<br />- Opensbc routes each call coming from Portas=
ip to the sipphone perfectly. Media proxy works fine. Great :-)<br />- for =
calls coming from my sipphone :<br /> SIPPhone issue an INVITE<br />&=
nbsp; this INVITE is forwarded to PortaSIP following the opensbc route<br /=
> PortaSIP answers an 'SIP/2.0 401 Unauthorized' because no a=
uthentication information are available in the request<br /> Here is =
the problem : OPENSBC TRANSLATE IT INTO A 'SIP/2.0 407 Proxy Authentica=
tion Required'. As a result, my sipphone authenticate with a 'Proxy=
-Authorization:' header. <br /> This answers is forwarded to my P=
ortaSIP which is waiting for a 'Authorization:' header because it i=
ssued a 401 error code. As a result, PortaSIP does not authenticate my phon=
e and call can not be established.<br /><br />Do you think that it is norma=
l to concert 401 responses to 407 responses when openSBC is not used as a p=
roxy but as a B2BUA ? I do not think so but perhaps am I missing some other=
point ?<br /><br />In fact, that conversion make it impossible for me to u=
se opensbc as I wish. do you think that it would be possible to take my pro=
blem into account and at least offer the choice to convert or not 401 t0 40=
7, depending of the targetted use for opensbc ?<br /><br />thanks in a=
dvance,<br />best regards,<br />Cedric<br /><br />
|
![http://www.opensourcesip.org:8080/jiveforums/images/emoticons/happy.gif"](http://www.opensourcesip.org:8080/jiveforums/images/emoticons/happy.gif"){kind=link}