|
Home > Archive > Voice Over IP in UK > February 2006 > Sipgate registration times out at the same time every day
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Sipgate registration times out at the same time every day
|
|
|
| Anyone else seen this?
Jan 30 03:15:13 NOTICE[6544]: chan_sip.c:5267 sip_reg_timeout: --
Registration for '6402044@sipgate.co.uk' timed out, trying again (Attempt
#1)
Jan 31 03:15:56 NOTICE[6544]: chan_sip.c:5267 sip_reg_timeout: --
Registration for '6402044@sipgate.co.uk' timed out, trying again (Attempt
#1)
....
Feb 2 03:12:43 NOTICE[6544]: chan_sip.c:5267 sip_reg_timeout: --
Registration for '6402044@sipgate.co.uk' timed out, trying again (Attempt
#1)
Feb 3 03:11:29 NOTICE[6544]: chan_sip.c:5267 sip_reg_timeout: --
Registration for '6402044@sipgate.co.uk' timed out, trying again (Attempt
#1)
Feb 4 03:11:34 NOTICE[6544]: chan_sip.c:5267 sip_reg_timeout: --
Registration for '6402044@sipgate.co.uk' timed out, trying again (Attempt
#1)
Same time every day. Not a big deal [in night service between 11 and 7],
just wondering if it's Sipgate or Telewest.
--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (gebssnfxl@ubgznvy.pbz)
11:08:01 up 9 days, 15:25, 2 users, load average: 1.73, 1.58, 1.12
This is my BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMSTICK
| |
| Thomas Kenyon 2006-02-04, 7:45 am |
| alexd wrote:
> Anyone else seen this?
>
>
> Jan 30 03:15:13 NOTICE[6544]: chan_sip.c:5267 sip_reg_timeout: --
> Registration for '6402044@sipgate.co.uk' timed out, trying again (Attempt
> #1)
> Jan 31 03:15:56 NOTICE[6544]: chan_sip.c:5267 sip_reg_timeout: --
> Registration for '6402044@sipgate.co.uk' timed out, trying again (Attempt
> #1)
> ...
> Feb 2 03:12:43 NOTICE[6544]: chan_sip.c:5267 sip_reg_timeout: --
> Registration for '6402044@sipgate.co.uk' timed out, trying again (Attempt
> #1)
> Feb 3 03:11:29 NOTICE[6544]: chan_sip.c:5267 sip_reg_timeout: --
> Registration for '6402044@sipgate.co.uk' timed out, trying again (Attempt
> #1)
> Feb 4 03:11:34 NOTICE[6544]: chan_sip.c:5267 sip_reg_timeout: --
> Registration for '6402044@sipgate.co.uk' timed out, trying again (Attempt
> #1)
>
> Same time every day. Not a big deal [in night service between 11 and 7],
> just wondering if it's Sipgate or Telewest.
>
I think it's sipgate, I've noticed this before, it manages to register
on attempt #2 (which is immediately after attempt 1).
Can't say that I've seen it as regularly though.
Why have you got such a short registration time?
mine is set to the maximum (3585 for sipgate), which is done in sip.conf
(defaultexpirey=3600 in the [general] tab.)
I know my IP isn't static, but it hasn't changed in an awfully long time.
| |
| Ivor Jones 2006-02-04, 7:45 am |
|
"Thomas Kenyon" <uktvoip@sanguinarius.co.uk> wrote in
message news:h30Ff.703$Z7.547@newsfe3-win.ntli.net
[snip]
> I think it's sipgate, I've noticed this before, it
> manages to register on attempt #2 (which is immediately
> after attempt 1).
> Can't say that I've seen it as regularly though.
> Why have you got such a short registration time?
> mine is set to the maximum (3585 for sipgate), which is
> done in sip.conf (defaultexpirey=3600 in the [general]
> tab.)
> I know my IP isn't static, but it hasn't changed in an
> awfully long time.
I've had it happen here also, but very rarely and not just on Sipgate. It
also happens on my FWD account.
Ivor
| |
|
| Thomas Kenyon wrote:
> I think it's sipgate, I've noticed this before, it manages to register
> on attempt #2 (which is immediately after attempt 1).
>
> Can't say that I've seen it as regularly though.
> Why have you got such a short registration time?
Er...I have? How can you tell from that logfile snippet?
> mine is set to the maximum (3585 for sipgate), which is done in sip.conf
> (defaultexpirey=3600 in the [general] tab.)
I checked sip.conf and I don't even have it defined. I'll stick 3585 in
there, as presumably if my IP rarely ever changes, I don't need to
re-register all the time.
> I know my IP isn't static, but it hasn't changed in an awfully long time.
Same here. Changes about every 6 months.
--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (gebssnfxl@ubgznvy.pbz)
17:52:37 up 9 days, 22:10, 2 users, load average: 2.47, 1.75, 1.58
This is my BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMSTICK
| |
| hairydog@despammed.com 2006-02-04, 5:45 pm |
| On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 18:26:28 GMT, Thomas Kenyon
<uktvoip@sanguinarius.co.uk> wrote:
>The default in asterisk is to re-register every 60 seconds.
Wouldn't every few hours be good enough?
| |
| Ivor Jones 2006-02-04, 5:45 pm |
|
<hairydog@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:3tbau19fkhffub1110p92rneum7qj3plrh@
4ax.com
> On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 18:26:28 GMT, Thomas Kenyon
> <uktvoip@sanguinarius.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> Wouldn't every few hours be good enough?
That depends. If your ATA is set to register once an hour and you unplug
it 5 minutes after it last registered, it will be 55 minutes before the
system sees you as offline. If you use voicemail, it won't cut in and
callers won't get any indication you are offline either. This is a common
reason for calls not being connected and people being distrustful of VoIP.
Ivor
| |
|
| hairydog@despammed.com wrote:
> On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 18:26:28 GMT, Thomas Kenyon
> <uktvoip@sanguinarius.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> Wouldn't every few hours be good enough?
"good enough" depends on individual circumstances, hence the ability to set
it to whatever you like.
--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (gebssnfxl@ubgznvy.pbz)
16:41:00 up 10 days, 20:58, 3 users, load average: 1.32, 1.46, 1.36
This is my BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMSTICK
| |
|
| Ivor Jones wrote:
> <hairydog@despammed.com> wrote in message
> news:3tbau19fkhffub1110p92rneum7qj3plrh@
4ax.com
>
> That depends. If your ATA is set to register once an hour and you unplug
> it 5 minutes after it last registered, it will be 55 minutes before the
> system sees you as offline. If you use voicemail, it won't cut in and
> callers won't get any indication you are offline either. This is a common
> reason for calls not being connected and people being distrustful of VoIP.
Surely Sipgate divert to VM or play a busy tone if your SIP client doesn't
respond to requests within a sensible time period?
--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (gebssnfxl@ubgznvy.pbz)
16:42:02 up 10 days, 20:59, 3 users, load average: 1.45, 1.47, 1.37
This is my BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMSTICK
| |
| Ivor Jones 2006-02-05, 3:17 pm |
|
"alexd" <troffasky@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1574722.HZfTqvDrvt@ale.cx
> Ivor Jones wrote:
>
>
>
> Surely Sipgate divert to VM or play a busy tone if your
> SIP client doesn't respond to requests within a sensible
> time period?
The time period is the registration interval..!
No busy tone, the system doesn't use it. If the server thinks you're
online it will attempt to connect the call. If you're not online, it
can't..! Hence the reason not to leave long gaps between registrations.
This is not unique to Sipgate BTW before the anti brigade pipe up.
Ivor
| |
|
| Ivor Jones wrote:
> "alexd" <troffasky@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1574722.HZfTqvDrvt@ale.cx
>
> The time period is the registration interval..!
Hmm.
> No busy tone, the system doesn't use it. If the server thinks you're
> online it will attempt to connect the call. If you're not online, it
> can't..! Hence the reason not to leave long gaps between registrations.
I meant, surely it would play busy if it your SIP client [be it Sipura,
Asterisk, X-lite, whatever] doesn't respond to a connection attempt from
Sipgate's SIP server.
And sure enough...I set my defaultexpirey to 3585 last night [as suggested
by Thomas Kenyon further up the thread]. Just now, I've unplugged my cable
modem, dialled my Sipgate number from my mobile, and almost immediately I
get a busy signal. Which is a relief, because I don't like the idea of
someone hanging on the phone for 3585 seconds waiting to see if it
rings ;-)
--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (gebssnfxl@ubgznvy.pbz)
18:53:22 up 10 days, 23:11, 2 users, load average: 1.14, 1.17, 1.17
This is my BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMSTICK
| |
| Ivor Jones 2006-02-05, 3:17 pm |
|
"alexd" <troffasky@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2668671.GYY8JTDZn7@ale.cx
[snip]
> I meant, surely it would play busy if it your SIP client
> [be it Sipura, Asterisk, X-lite, whatever] doesn't
> respond to a connection attempt from Sipgate's SIP server.
>
> And sure enough...I set my defaultexpirey to 3585 last
> night [as suggested by Thomas Kenyon further up the
> thread]. Just now, I've unplugged my cable modem, dialled
> my Sipgate number from my mobile, and almost immediately
> I get a busy signal. Which is a relief, because I don't
> like the idea of someone hanging on the phone for 3585
> seconds waiting to see if it
> rings ;-)
Sipgate does *not* generate a busy tone. If you are hearing one, it is
generated by your system or the remote end if a PSTN call.
Actually, to check, I just unplugged my Sipura 2000 and got "Sorry, the
service you require cannot be connected" from my Telewest line. So maybe I
was wrong, but there is still no busy tone generated.
Ivor
| |
| Thomas Kenyon 2006-02-05, 3:17 pm |
| alexd wrote:
>
> I meant, surely it would play busy if it your SIP client [be it Sipura,
> Asterisk, X-lite, whatever] doesn't respond to a connection attempt from
> Sipgate's SIP server.
>
I just think it's a shame that you can't register an IP with them
instead of using registrations. (obvoiusly as another option rather than
a requirement).
| |
| Ivor Jones 2006-02-05, 3:17 pm |
|
"Thomas Kenyon" <uktvoip@sanguinarius.co.uk> wrote in
message news:hLsFf.5585$Dn4.5306@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net
> Ivor Jones wrote:
> Although you may get that because I'm getting that from
> all my sipgate numbers atm.
Yes you're right, I checked again, there seems to have been a PSTN
connectivity outage. It's ok now.
Ivor
| |
| Thomas Kenyon 2006-02-05, 8:45 pm |
| Ivor Jones wrote:
>
> Yes you're right, I checked again, there seems to have been a PSTN
> connectivity outage. It's ok now.
>
> Ivor
>
Not really a problem, but when I'm sober I will probably set up the
house system to revert to my gradwell account if it fails to connect
with sipgate. (at the time outgoing calls were giving auth failures as
well).
Won't fix incoming calls should it happen again, but I'm not worried.
It's just typical that a friend of the boys was trying to call when it
broke.
| |
|
| Hi,
I use them too, and I have been having problems with unreachable DIDs since
I signed up.
After installing asterisk I noticed the problem(over loaded servers) and
send them an e-mail about it.
this is the reply I got:
"we know about the problem. Unfortunately, this is something we are not able
to solve immediately (we are installing new hardware). We will fix this
problem within two weeks.
Sorry for the inconveniences."
so I guess we will have to wait and see...
nige
"Thomas Kenyon" <uktvoip@sanguinarius.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bRwFf.7170$494.2837@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
> Ivor Jones wrote:
>
> Not really a problem, but when I'm sober I will probably set up the house
> system to revert to my gradwell account if it fails to connect with
> sipgate. (at the time outgoing calls were giving auth failures as well).
>
> Won't fix incoming calls should it happen again, but I'm not worried.
> It's just typical that a friend of the boys was trying to call when it
> broke.
| |
|
| Nige wrote:
> After installing asterisk I noticed the problem(over loaded servers) and
> send them an e-mail about it.
> this is the reply I got:
>
> "we know about the problem. Unfortunately, this is something we are not
> able to solve immediately (we are installing new hardware). We will fix
> this problem within two weeks.
> Sorry for the inconveniences."
>
> so I guess we will have to wait and see...
Did they happen to mention in which year those two weeks would be? ;-)
--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (gebssnfxl@ubgznvy.pbz)
12:38:56 up 30 days, 16:57, 3 users, load average: 0.00, 0.04, 0.03
This is my BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMSTICK
| |
| Dellboy 2006-02-25, 5:45 pm |
|
"alexd" <look@my.sig> wrote in message news:1390047.MeQWoJ0KJ1@ale.cx...
> Did they happen to mention in which year those two weeks would be? ;-)
>
Now, Now give them the benefit of the doubt ;0)
| |
|
| LOL!
Should be next Tuesday as I got the reply on 21st Feb.
btw...I've noticed they also use asterisk PBX, so I'm hoping they may open
up the IAX2 port for me 
nige
"alexd" <look@my.sig> wrote in message news:1390047.MeQWoJ0KJ1@ale.cx...
> Nige wrote:
>
>
> Did they happen to mention in which year those two weeks would be? ;-)
>
> --
> <http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (gebssnfxl@ubgznvy.pbz)
> 12:38:56 up 30 days, 16:57, 3 users, load average: 0.00, 0.04, 0.03
> This is my BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMSTICK
>
| |
| Thomas Kenyon 2006-02-27, 5:45 pm |
| Nige wrote:
> LOL!
> Should be next Tuesday as I got the reply on 21st Feb.
> btw...I've noticed they also use asterisk PBX, so I'm hoping they may open
> up the IAX2 port for me
>
Wouldn't that be nice (unlikely).
|
|
|
|
|