Snom 320 phones registering with 4.4 but not with 4.6

[Kurt Albershardt]

After building, destroying and re-building nearly 20 VMs over the past few days, I now am confident that I have a reproducible failure getting Snom 320 phones to register with 4.6:


4.4 procedure:

Build VM with Centos 5
Assign both A and in-addr records for VM IP to sipx.murray-hotel.com host
yum update
reboot
wget -P /etc/yum.repos.d/ http://download.sipfoundry.org/pub/sipXecs/sipxecs-4.4.0-centos.repo
yum install sipxecs
sipxecs-setup
login to web config
create 3 new phones using Snom 320 template
create 3 new users (111,112,113)
assign one line to each Snom 320 phone
change timezone on each phone to USA-7
generate configs for all phones
unplug/replug 3 phones

Result: phones all register


Phone log snippet:
[5] 23/12/2001 17:00:21:Opening TCP socket on port 5060
[3] 23/12/2001 17:00:22:Invalid Date: 23.12.2001 Time: 17:00
[2] 14/7/2012 17:23:08:start_dst(1331431200) end_dst(1351994400) offset_dst(3600) offset_utc(-25200)
[2] 14/7/2012 17:23:08:start DST: 03/11/2012 02:00:00 (1331431200)
[2] 14/7/2012 17:23:08:end DST: 11/04/2012 02:00:00 (1351994400)
[5] 14/7/2012 17:23:10:timeout::callback: Registering with timeout of 0 ms
[5] 14/7/2012 17:23:10:sip::process_auth:Match challenge for user=111, realm=sipx.murray-hotel.com
[2] 14/7/2012 17:23:10:Registered at registrar as ***@sipx.murray-hotel.com (Expires: 1805 secs)
[5] 14/7/2012 17:23:10:timeout::callback: Registering with timeout of 0 ms
[5] 14/7/2012 17:23:10:sip::process_auth:Match challenge for user=111, realm=sipx.murray-hotel.com
[5] 14/7/2012 17:23:20:Applying Settings...
[5] 14/7/2012 17:23:20:Settings applied!






4.6 procedure:

Build VM with Centos 6
Assign both A and in-addr records for VM IP to sipx.murray-hotel.com host
yum update
reboot
wget -P /etc/yum.repos.d http://download.sipfoundry.org/pub/sipXecs/sipxecs-4.6.0-centos.repo
yum install epel-release
yum groupinstall sipxecs
sipxecs-setup
login to web config
create 3 new phones using Snom 320 template
create 3 new users (111,112,113)
assign one line to each Snom 320 phone
change timezone on each phone to USA-7
generate configs for all phones
unplug/replug 3 phones

Result: no phones register


Phone log snippet:
[5] 23/12/2001 17:00:22:Opening TCP socket on port 5060
[3] 23/12/2001 17:00:23:Invalid Date: 23.12.2001 Time: 17:00
[2] 14/7/2012 17:31:03:start_dst(1331431200) end_dst(1351994400) offset_dst(3600) offset_utc(-25200)
[2] 14/7/2012 17:31:03:start DST: 03/11/2012 02:00:00 (1331431200)
[2] 14/7/2012 17:31:03:end DST: 11/04/2012 02:00:00 (1351994400)
[5] 14/7/2012 17:31:04:timeout::callback: Registering with timeout of 0 ms
[5] 14/7/2012 17:31:04:Add dirty host: udp/192.168.44.30/5060
[5] 14/7/2012 17:31:04:timeout::callback: Registering with timeout of 0 ms
[2] 14/7/2012 17:31:04:Transport Error: Pending packet 1000000: generating fake
[2] 14/7/2012 17:31:04:Registrar ***@sipx.murray-hotel.com timed out
[5] 14/7/2012 17:31:15:Applying Settings...
[5] 14/7/2012 17:31:15:Settings applied!
[5] 14/7/2012 17:32:05:timeout::callback: Registering with timeout of 0 ms
[5] 14/7/2012 17:32:05:Add dirty host: udp/192.168.44.30/5060
[5] 14/7/2012 17:32:05:timeout::callback: Registering with timeout of 0 ms
[2] 14/7/2012 17:32:05:Transport Error: Pending packet 1000002: generating fake
[2] 14/7/2012 17:32:05:Registrar ***@sipx.murray-hotel.com timed out
[5] 14/7/2012 17:33:06:timeout::callback: Registering with timeout of 0 ms
[5] 14/7/2012 17:33:06:Add dirty host: udp/192.168.44.30/5060
[5] 14/7/2012 17:33:06:timeout::callback: Registering with timeout of 0 ms
[2] 14/7/2012 17:33:06:Transport Error: Pending packet 1000004: generating fake
[2] 14/7/2012 17:33:06:Registrar ***@sipx.murray-hotel.com timed out

[Tony Graziano]

Please verify the DNS zone is running. It sounds like DNS is not working.
There is a known issue with DNS in regard to the build. If it is not
running please change the zone serial number to YYYYMMDDXX save the zone
and ensure named is running then try again.

Post by Kurt Albershardt
After building, destroying and re-building nearly 20 VMs over the past few
days, I now am confident that I have a reproducible failure getting Snom
Build VM with Centos 5
Assign both A and in-addr records for VM IP to sipx.murray-hotel.com host
yum update
reboot
wget -P /etc/yum.repos.d/
http://download.sipfoundry.org/pub/sipXecs/sipxecs-4.4.0-centos.repo
yum install sipxecs
sipxecs-setup
login to web config
create 3 new phones using Snom 320 template
create 3 new users (111,112,113)
assign one line to each Snom 320 phone
change timezone on each phone to USA-7
generate configs for all phones
unplug/replug 3 phones
Result: phones all register
[5] 23/12/2001 17:00:21:Opening TCP socket on port 5060
[3] 23/12/2001 17:00:22:Invalid Date: 23.12.2001 Time: 17:00
[2] 14/7/2012 17:23:08:start_dst(1331431200) end_dst(1351994400)
offset_dst(3600) offset_utc(-25200)
[2] 14/7/2012 17:23:08:start DST: 03/11/2012 02:00:00 (1331431200)
[2] 14/7/2012 17:23:08:end DST: 11/04/2012 02:00:00 (1351994400)
[5] 14/7/2012 17:23:10:timeout::callback: Registering with timeout of 0 ms
[5] 14/7/2012 17:23:10:sip::process_auth:Match challenge for user=111,
realm=sipx.murray-hotel.com
[2] 14/7/2012 17:23:10:Registered at registrar as
[5] 14/7/2012 17:23:10:timeout::callback: Registering with timeout of 0 ms
[5] 14/7/2012 17:23:10:sip::process_auth:Match challenge for user=111,
realm=sipx.murray-hotel.com
[5] 14/7/2012 17:23:20:Applying Settings...
[5] 14/7/2012 17:23:20:Settings applied!
Build VM with Centos 6
Assign both A and in-addr records for VM IP to sipx.murray-hotel.com host
yum update
reboot
wget -P /etc/yum.repos.d
http://download.sipfoundry.org/pub/sipXecs/sipxecs-4.6.0-centos.repo
yum install epel-release
yum groupinstall sipxecs
sipxecs-setup
login to web config
create 3 new phones using Snom 320 template
create 3 new users (111,112,113)
assign one line to each Snom 320 phone
change timezone on each phone to USA-7
generate configs for all phones
unplug/replug 3 phones
Result: no phones register
[5] 23/12/2001 17:00:22:Opening TCP socket on port 5060
[3] 23/12/2001 17:00:23:Invalid Date: 23.12.2001 Time: 17:00
[2] 14/7/2012 17:31:03:start_dst(1331431200) end_dst(1351994400)
offset_dst(3600) offset_utc(-25200)
[2] 14/7/2012 17:31:03:start DST: 03/11/2012 02:00:00 (1331431200)
[2] 14/7/2012 17:31:03:end DST: 11/04/2012 02:00:00 (1351994400)
[5] 14/7/2012 17:31:04:timeout::callback: Registering with timeout of 0 ms
[5] 14/7/2012 17:31:04:Add dirty host: udp/192.168.44.30/5060
[5] 14/7/2012 17:31:04:timeout::callback: Registering with timeout of 0 ms
[2] 14/7/2012 17:31:04:Transport Error: Pending packet 1000000: generating fake
[5] 14/7/2012 17:31:15:Applying Settings...
[5] 14/7/2012 17:31:15:Settings applied!
[5] 14/7/2012 17:32:05:timeout::callback: Registering with timeout of 0 ms
[5] 14/7/2012 17:32:05:Add dirty host: udp/192.168.44.30/5060
[5] 14/7/2012 17:32:05:timeout::callback: Registering with timeout of 0 ms
[2] 14/7/2012 17:32:05:Transport Error: Pending packet 1000002: generating fake
[5] 14/7/2012 17:33:06:timeout::callback: Registering with timeout of 0 ms
[5] 14/7/2012 17:33:06:Add dirty host: udp/192.168.44.30/5060
[5] 14/7/2012 17:33:06:timeout::callback: Registering with timeout of 0 ms
[2] 14/7/2012 17:33:06:Transport Error: Pending packet 1000004: generating fake
_______________________________________________
sipx-users mailing list
List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/

[Kurt Albershardt]

DNS on the sipx box? I've not done anything there, just in pfSense (which is authoritative for the zone.) When I query the local resolver with the name, I get 127.0.0.1

Both forward and reverse lookups are checked from a workstation before I try to register phones. The phones resolve the name in order to pull the config file.

Please verify the DNS zone is running. It sounds like DNS is not working. There is a known issue with DNS in regard to the build. If it is not running please change the zone serial number to YYYYMMDDXX save the zone and ensure named is running then try again.

[Kurt Albershardt]

Problems in resolv.conf (search domain is wrong, and it overwrote the nameserver):


4.4:
[***@sipx ~]# cat /etc/resolv.conf
search murray-hotel.com
nameserver 192.168.44.1
[***@sipx ~]#


4.6:
# cat /etc/resolv.conf
# Generated by sipXecs
search sipx.murray-hotel.com
nameserver 127.0.0.1
[***@sipx ~]#

manually edited resolv.conf in 4.6 to match 4.4
verified forward and reverse lookups from command line, but phones still don't register with 4.6:

[5] 23/12/2001 17:00:22:Opening TCP socket on port 5060
[3] 23/12/2001 17:00:22:Invalid Date: 23.12.2001 Time: 17:00
[2] 14/7/2012 18:46:05:start_dst(1331431200) end_dst(1351994400) offset_dst(3600) offset_utc(-25200)
[2] 14/7/2012 18:46:05:start DST: 03/11/2012 02:00:00 (1331431200)
[2] 14/7/2012 18:46:05:end DST: 11/04/2012 02:00:00 (1351994400)
[5] 14/7/2012 18:46:06:timeout::callback: Registering with timeout of 0 ms
[5] 14/7/2012 18:46:06:Add dirty host: udp/192.168.44.30/5060
[5] 14/7/2012 18:46:06:timeout::callback: Registering with timeout of 0 ms
[2] 14/7/2012 18:46:06:Transport Error: Pending packet 1000000: generating fake
[2] 14/7/2012 18:46:06:Registrar ***@sipx.murray-hotel.com timed out
[5] 14/7/2012 18:46:16:Applying Settings...
[5] 14/7/2012 18:46:17:Settings applied!
[5] 14/7/2012 18:47:07:timeout::callback: Registering with timeout of 0 ms
[5] 14/7/2012 18:47:07:Add dirty host: udp/192.168.44.30/5060
[5] 14/7/2012 18:47:07:timeout::callback: Registering with timeout of 0 ms
[2] 14/7/2012 18:47:07:Transport Error: Pending packet 1000002: generating fake

Post by Kurt Albershardt
DNS on the sipx box? I've not done anything there, just in pfSense (which is authoritative for the zone.) When I query the local resolver with the name, I get 127.0.0.1
Both forward and reverse lookups are checked from a workstation before I try to register phones. The phones resolve the name in order to pull the config file.

Please verify the DNS zone is running. It sounds like DNS is not working. There is a known issue with DNS in regard to the build. If it is not running please change the zone serial number to YYYYMMDDXX save the zone and ensure named is running then try again.

_______________________________________________
sipx-users mailing list
List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/

[Michael Picher]

resolv.conf isn't going to help your phones any... it's just for that
server itself. It tells the server where to go for DNS.

So, where are the phones getting DHCP from, and can you verify that the
phones have proper addressing / options?

Try hardcoding a phone with the IP & DNS and see what happens.

Mike

Post by Kurt Albershardt
search murray-hotel.com
nameserver 192.168.44.1
# cat /etc/resolv.conf
# Generated by sipXecs
search sipx.murray-hotel.com
nameserver 127.0.0.1
manually edited resolv.conf in 4.6 to match 4.4
verified forward and reverse lookups from command line, but phones still
[5] 23/12/2001 17:00:22:Opening TCP socket on port 5060
[3] 23/12/2001 17:00:22:Invalid Date: 23.12.2001 Time: 17:00
[2] 14/7/2012 18:46:05:start_dst(1331431200) end_dst(1351994400)
offset_dst(3600) offset_utc(-25200)
[2] 14/7/2012 18:46:05:start DST: 03/11/2012 02:00:00 (1331431200)
[2] 14/7/2012 18:46:05:end DST: 11/04/2012 02:00:00 (1351994400)
[5] 14/7/2012 18:46:06:timeout::callback: Registering with timeout of 0 ms
[5] 14/7/2012 18:46:06:Add dirty host: udp/192.168.44.30/5060
[5] 14/7/2012 18:46:06:timeout::callback: Registering with timeout of 0 ms
[2] 14/7/2012 18:46:06:Transport Error: Pending packet 1000000: generating fake
[5] 14/7/2012 18:46:16:Applying Settings...
[5] 14/7/2012 18:46:17:Settings applied!
[5] 14/7/2012 18:47:07:timeout::callback: Registering with timeout of 0 ms
[5] 14/7/2012 18:47:07:Add dirty host: udp/192.168.44.30/5060
[5] 14/7/2012 18:47:07:timeout::callback: Registering with timeout of 0 ms
[2] 14/7/2012 18:47:07:Transport Error: Pending packet 1000002: generating fake
DNS on the sipx box? I've not done anything there, just in pfSense (which
is authoritative for the zone.) When I query the local resolver with the
name, I get 127.0.0.1
Both forward and reverse lookups are checked from a workstation before I
try to register phones. The phones resolve the name in order to pull the
config file.
Please verify the DNS zone is running. It sounds like DNS is not working.
There is a known issue with DNS in regard to the build. If it is not
running please change the zone serial number to YYYYMMDDXX save the zone
and ensure named is running then try again.

Post by Kurt Albershardt
After building, destroying and re-building nearly 20 VMs over the past
few days, I now am confident that I have a reproducible failure getting

_______________________________________________
sipx-users mailing list
List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/
_______________________________________________
sipx-users mailing list
List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/

--
Michael Picher, Director of Technical Services
eZuce, Inc.

300 Brickstone Square****

Suite 201****

Andover, MA. 01810
O.978-296-1005 X2015
M.207-956-0262
@mpicher <http://twitter.com/mpicher>
linkedin <http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=35504760&trk=tab_pro>
www.ezuce.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are 10 kinds of people in the world, those who understand binary and
those who don't.

[Kurt Albershardt]

resolv.conf isn't going to help your phones any... it's just for that server itself. It tells the server where to go for DNS.

For someone who is quite familiar with DNS, what is the issue I'm trying to solve?

where are the phones getting DHCP from, and can you verify that the phones have proper addressing / options?

A pfSense gateway (at 192.168.44.1) provides both DHCP and DNS for the segment.
They are getting proper DHCP address assignments (on screen every time they boot.) The DHCP server does not properly handle options 66 & 67, so I've hard-coded the settings URL into their webUIs.
All phones pick up their assigned DHCP address at boot and are resolving names (or they could not pull the config XML.)

Try hardcoding a phone with the IP & DNS and see what happens.

Did that earlier while I was debugging. I can try again...

[Todd Hodgen]

Kurt, sipXecs relies 100% on the accuracy of DNS. One of the beautiful
things about this product, especially for a small installation, you can have
DHCP and DNS right on the server. I think that makes for a much cleaner
installation that trying to rely on the firewall (PFSense) for those duties.
In using the DNS and DHCP, you will automagically have Option 66 enabled and
configured correctly, DNS configured correctly, etc. for a fast, turnkey
installation.

It seem you have opted to go a different route. If you continue down that
path, I'd recommend you get familiar with Diagnostic Tests from the GUI, and
sipviewer, a free tool you can find on the wiki that will help you read the
registrations, and other sip events to understand why things aren't working
correctly. There are some troubleshooting tools on the wiki as well which
will help you do tracing of sip messaging, packet captures, etc. Once you
start reading these log files, or sharing them with the user community, you
will be able to resolve your issues much quicker.

It would be hard to help diagnose your DNS issues without seeing some
details trace files of what is actually failing.

-----Original Message-----
From: sipx-users-***@list.sipfoundry.org
[mailto:sipx-users-***@list.sipfoundry.org] On Behalf Of Kurt
Albershardt
Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2012 2:46 PM
To: Discussion list for users of sipXecs software
Subject: Re: [sipx-users] Snom 320 phones registering with 4.4 but not with
4.6

Post by Michael Picher
resolv.conf isn't going to help your phones any... it's just for that

server itself. It tells the server where to go for DNS.

For someone who is quite familiar with DNS, what is the issue I'm trying to
solve?

Post by Michael Picher
where are the phones getting DHCP from, and can you verify that the

phones have proper addressing / options?

A pfSense gateway (at 192.168.44.1) provides both DHCP and DNS for the
segment.
They are getting proper DHCP address assignments (on screen every time they
boot.) The DHCP server does not properly handle options 66 & 67, so I've
hard-coded the settings URL into their webUIs.
All phones pick up their assigned DHCP address at boot and are resolving
names (or they could not pull the config XML.)

Post by Michael Picher
Try hardcoding a phone with the IP & DNS and see what happens.

Did that earlier while I was debugging. I can try again...

[Tony Graziano]

I'd suggest putting the proxy and registrar log levels to debug and
inspecting them when you try to register.

Post by Kurt Albershardt
search murray-hotel.com
nameserver 192.168.44.1
# cat /etc/resolv.conf
# Generated by sipXecs
search sipx.murray-hotel.com
nameserver 127.0.0.1
manually edited resolv.conf in 4.6 to match 4.4
verified forward and reverse lookups from command line, but phones still
[5] 23/12/2001 17:00:22:Opening TCP socket on port 5060
[3] 23/12/2001 17:00:22:Invalid Date: 23.12.2001 Time: 17:00
[2] 14/7/2012 18:46:05:start_dst(1331431200) end_dst(1351994400)
offset_dst(3600) offset_utc(-25200)
[2] 14/7/2012 18:46:05:start DST: 03/11/2012 02:00:00 (1331431200)
[2] 14/7/2012 18:46:05:end DST: 11/04/2012 02:00:00 (1351994400)
[5] 14/7/2012 18:46:06:timeout::callback: Registering with timeout of 0 ms
[5] 14/7/2012 18:46:06:Add dirty host: udp/192.168.44.30/5060
[5] 14/7/2012 18:46:06:timeout::callback: Registering with timeout of 0 ms
[2] 14/7/2012 18:46:06:Transport Error: Pending packet 1000000: generating fake
[5] 14/7/2012 18:46:16:Applying Settings...
[5] 14/7/2012 18:46:17:Settings applied!
[5] 14/7/2012 18:47:07:timeout::callback: Registering with timeout of 0 ms
[5] 14/7/2012 18:47:07:Add dirty host: udp/192.168.44.30/5060
[5] 14/7/2012 18:47:07:timeout::callback: Registering with timeout of 0 ms
[2] 14/7/2012 18:47:07:Transport Error: Pending packet 1000002: generating fake
DNS on the sipx box? I've not done anything there, just in pfSense (which
is authoritative for the zone.) When I query the local resolver with the
name, I get 127.0.0.1
Both forward and reverse lookups are checked from a workstation before I
try to register phones. The phones resolve the name in order to pull the
config file.
Please verify the DNS zone is running. It sounds like DNS is not working.
There is a known issue with DNS in regard to the build. If it is not
running please change the zone serial number to YYYYMMDDXX save the zone
and ensure named is running then try again.

Post by Kurt Albershardt
After building, destroying and re-building nearly 20 VMs over the past
few days, I now am confident that I have a reproducible failure getting

_______________________________________________
sipx-users mailing list
List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/
_______________________________________________
sipx-users mailing list
List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/

[Kurt Albershardt]

I'd suggest putting the proxy and registrar log levels to debug and inspecting them when you try to register.

I did quite a bit of that the other day and saw nothing in the logs other than a bunch of inter-cluster stuff -- nothing that I could associate with a phone booting while doing a tail -f on the logs one at a time. Ran a tcpdump and saw the config getting pulled, but no registration.

The phone status page says "network failure" next to registration #1, but I was hoping someone could make something of the difference between the two logs (attached.) This is the same phone with the same MAC plugged into the same switch port, with both servers running on different IPs on the same VM host. The difference is that in one case the name 'sipx.murray-hotel.com' is mapped (forward and reverse) to the IP of the 4.4 and in the other it is mapped to the 4.6 server.

[Todd Hodgen]

IF, you are going to put this into production, I would not be messing with
4.6. It's not released to production yet, and will surely have some issues
to work out over the first few weeks. 4.4 is a proven, stable release that
installs just fine, and will support what you need, unless you are in need
of an ACD.



Additionally, there are significant changes in 4.6 that will not have the
same level of support on the user groups.



These log files seem to be packet captures from diagnostics packet capture
on PFSense.



I would recommend turning on debug on sipXecs, and get merged log file from
sipXecs. It will give you the details you need to troubleshoot this.



From: sipx-users-***@list.sipfoundry.org
[mailto:sipx-users-***@list.sipfoundry.org] On Behalf Of Kurt
Albershardt
Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2012 2:55 PM
To: Discussion list for users of sipXecs software
Subject: Re: [sipx-users] Snom 320 phones registering with 4.4 but not with
4.6



On Jul 15, 2012, at 3:08 , Tony Graziano wrote:

I'd suggest putting the proxy and registrar log levels to debug and
inspecting them when you try to register.

I did quite a bit of that the other day and saw nothing in the logs other
than a bunch of inter-cluster stuff -- nothing that I could associate with a
phone booting while doing a tail -f on the logs one at a time. Ran a
tcpdump and saw the config getting pulled, but no registration.



The phone status page says "network failure" next to registration #1, but I
was hoping someone could make something of the difference between the two
logs (attached.) This is the same phone with the same MAC plugged into the
same switch port, with both servers running on different IPs on the same VM
host. The difference is that in one case the name 'sipx.murray-hotel.com'
is mapped (forward and reverse) to the IP of the 4.4 and in the other it is
mapped to the 4.6 server.

[Kurt Albershardt]

IF, you are going to put this into production, I would not be messing with 4.6. It’s not released to production yet, and will surely have some issues to work out over the first few weeks. 4.4 is a proven, stable release that installs just fine, and will support what you need, unless you are in need of an ACD.

How do I configure ntp to be an unmanaged service in 4.4?

what happened to you efforts on 4.6? It's almost released, why go thru
the effort on 4.4?

I'm working them in parallel, actually.
Wanted to test out my appliance-building skills on 4.4 first, then start tinkering with 4.6 once I get the build process down.
These log files seem to be packet captures from diagnostics packet capture on PFSense.
I would recommend turning on debug on sipXecs, and get merged log file from sipXecs. It will give you the details you need to troubleshoot this.

The log files are from one of the Snom 320s.

[Tony Graziano]

Pfsense has a plugin for version 1.2.3 to hand out tftp. Version 2.x can
hand out boot server natively.

I'm not a snom fan and don't have one hear to test with otherwise I could
provide better guidance.

If it was me, and its not, I would approach this differently:

I would install sipx as a subdomain (I.e. uc.sipdomain.TLD). I would point
the firewall DNS forwarder for both the host and subdomain to sipx and let
sipx run its own DNS.

I would not hard code the phones AT ALL.

Post by Tony Graziano
I'd suggest putting the proxy and registrar log levels to debug and
inspecting them when you try to register.
I did quite a bit of that the other day and saw nothing in the logs other
than a bunch of inter-cluster stuff -- nothing that I could associate with
a phone booting while doing a tail -f on the logs one at a time. Ran a
tcpdump and saw the config getting pulled, but no registration.
The phone status page says "network failure" next to registration #1, but
I was hoping someone could make something of the difference between the two
logs (attached.) This is the same phone with the same MAC plugged into the
same switch port, with both servers running on different IPs on the same VM
host. The difference is that in one case the name 'sipx.murray-hotel.com'
is mapped (forward and reverse) to the IP of the 4.4 and in the other it is
mapped to the 4.6 server.
_______________________________________________
sipx-users mailing list
List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/

[Tony Graziano]

I think the thing you are leaving out is the phone config generated by sipx
can load a different DNS setting than what you intended, which is why I
suggested this deployment option to avoid a conflicting configuration on
the UA itself.

Post by Tony Graziano
Pfsense has a plugin for version 1.2.3 to hand out tftp. Version 2.x can
hand out boot server natively.
I'm not a snom fan and don't have one hear to test with otherwise I could
provide better guidance.
I would install sipx as a subdomain (I.e. uc.sipdomain.TLD). I would point
the firewall DNS forwarder for both the host and subdomain to sipx and let
sipx run its own DNS.
I would not hard code the phones AT ALL.

Post by Tony Graziano
I'd suggest putting the proxy and registrar log levels to debug and
inspecting them when you try to register.
I did quite a bit of that the other day and saw nothing in the logs other
than a bunch of inter-cluster stuff -- nothing that I could associate with
a phone booting while doing a tail -f on the logs one at a time. Ran a
tcpdump and saw the config getting pulled, but no registration.
The phone status page says "network failure" next to registration #1,
but I was hoping someone could make something of the difference between the
two logs (attached.) This is the same phone with the same MAC plugged into
the same switch port, with both servers running on different IPs on the
same VM host. The difference is that in one case the name '
sipx.murray-hotel.com' is mapped (forward and reverse) to the IP of the
4.4 and in the other it is mapped to the 4.6 server.
_______________________________________________
sipx-users mailing list
List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/

[Kurt Albershardt]

I think the thing you are leaving out is the phone config generated by sipx can load a different DNS setting than what you intended, which is why I suggested this deployment option to avoid a conflicting configuration on the UA itself.

OK, that helps.

I'll take another a look at the Snom XML configs. When I diffed them on Friday I found only these differences:

<ntp_server perm="R"></ntp_server> <ntp_server perm="R">pool.ntp.org</ntp_server>

<user_pass idx="1" perm="R">123456789012</user_pass> <user_pass idx="1" perm="R">12355678</user_pass>

<user_moh idx="1" perm="R">sip:~~mh~***@sipx.murray-hotel.com</user_moh> <user_moh idx="1" perm="R">sip:~~mh~@sipx.murray-hotel.com</user_moh>

[Kurt Albershardt]

Still no luck getting these to register with 4.6

Phones are showing "network failure" in the registration status and seeing timeouts reaching the sipx box.

Network config (including DNS) in phones is the same as when they pull configs from 4.4 (seen via phone HTTP interface in both cases.)

Post by Kurt Albershardt

I think the thing you are leaving out is the phone config generated by sipx can load a different DNS setting than what you intended, which is why I suggested this deployment option to avoid a conflicting configuration on the UA itself.

OK, that helps.
<ntp_server perm="R"></ntp_server> <ntp_server perm="R">pool.ntp.org</ntp_server>
<user_pass idx="1" perm="R">123456789012</user_pass> <user_pass idx="1" perm="R">12355678</user_pass>

[Tony Graziano]

I don't use snom's but if you could compare the two sipx generated config
files to see what is different between them, if anything, it would be worth
the look.

Post by Kurt Albershardt
Still no luck getting these to register with 4.6
Phones are showing "network failure" in the registration status and seeing
timeouts reaching the sipx box.
Network config (including DNS) in phones is the same as when they pull
configs from 4.4 (seen via phone HTTP interface in both cases.)
I think the thing you are leaving out is the phone config generated by
sipx can load a different DNS setting than what you intended, which is why
I suggested this deployment option to avoid a conflicting configuration on
the UA itself.
OK, that helps.
I'll take another a look at the Snom XML configs. When I diffed them on
<ntp_server perm="R"></ntp_server> <ntp_server perm="R">pool.ntp.org
</ntp_server>
<user_pass idx="1" perm="R">123456789012</user_pass> <user_pass idx="1"
perm="R">12355678</user_pass>
_______________________________________________
sipx-users mailing list
List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tony Graziano, Manager
Telephone: [phone]
sip: ***@voice.myitdepartment.net
Fax: [phone]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Linked-In Profile:
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/tony-graziano/14/4a6/7a4
Ask about our Internet Fax services!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Using or developing for sipXecs from SIPFoundry? Ask me about sipX-CoLab
2013!
<http://sipxcolab2013.eventbrite.com/?discount=tony2013>

[Kurt Albershardt]

Diffs are below -- first two are expected but don't know much about the MOH URI.

I don't use snom's but if you could compare the two sipx generated config files to see what is different between them, if anything, it would be worth the look.
Still no luck getting these to register with 4.6
Phones are showing "network failure" in the registration status and seeing timeouts reaching the sipx box.
Network config (including DNS) in phones is the same as when they pull configs from 4.4 (seen via phone HTTP interface in both cases.)

Post by Kurt Albershardt

I think the thing you are leaving out is the phone config generated by sipx can load a different DNS setting than what you intended, which is why I suggested this deployment option to avoid a conflicting configuration on the UA itself.

OK, that helps.
<ntp_server perm="R"></ntp_server> <ntp_server perm="R">pool.ntp.org</ntp_server>
<user_pass idx="1" perm="R">123456789012</user_pass> <user_pass idx="1" perm="R">12355678</user_pass>

[Tony Graziano]

I am not familiar with snom syntax. The MOH uri standard should be:

~~mh~@sipdomain.tld is the typical uri for polycom phones, which use a
broadworks uri standard.

I don't know which is the 4.4 or 4.6 in the email you sent. obviously if
the system was using the hostname and had doublequotes, all bets are off.

I am not sure what your ultimate aim is, we have 4.4 in production with no
real issues. 4.6 is being actively worked on. if you are trying to press
something into production, 4.4 would be "safe" at this time.

Post by Kurt Albershardt
Diffs are below -- first two are expected but don't know much about the MOH URI.
I don't use snom's but if you could compare the two sipx generated config
files to see what is different between them, if anything, it would be worth
the look.

Post by Kurt Albershardt
Still no luck getting these to register with 4.6
Phones are showing "network failure" in the registration status and
seeing timeouts reaching the sipx box.
Network config (including DNS) in phones is the same as when they pull
configs from 4.4 (seen via phone HTTP interface in both cases.)
I think the thing you are leaving out is the phone config generated by
sipx can load a different DNS setting than what you intended, which is why
I suggested this deployment option to avoid a conflicting configuration on
the UA itself.
OK, that helps.
I'll take another a look at the Snom XML configs. When I diffed them on
<ntp_server perm="R"></ntp_server> <ntp_server perm="R">pool.ntp.org
</ntp_server>
<user_pass idx="1" perm="R">123456789012</user_pass> <user_pass idx="1"
perm="R">12355678</user_pass>

_______________________________________________
sipx-users mailing list
List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tony Graziano, Manager
Telephone: [phone]
sip: ***@voice.myitdepartment.net
Fax: [phone]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Linked-In Profile:
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/tony-graziano/14/4a6/7a4
Ask about our Internet Fax services!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Using or developing for sipXecs from SIPFoundry? Ask me about sipX-CoLab
2013!
<http://sipxcolab2013.eventbrite.com/?discount=tony2013>

[Michael Picher]

that shouldn't cause a network error with the phone though...

Post by Tony Graziano
broadworks uri standard.
I don't know which is the 4.4 or 4.6 in the email you sent. obviously if
the system was using the hostname and had doublequotes, all bets are off.
I am not sure what your ultimate aim is, we have 4.4 in production with no
real issues. 4.6 is being actively worked on. if you are trying to press
something into production, 4.4 would be "safe" at this time.

Post by Kurt Albershardt
Diffs are below -- first two are expected but don't know much about the MOH URI.
I don't use snom's but if you could compare the two sipx generated config
files to see what is different between them, if anything, it would be worth
the look.

Post by Kurt Albershardt
Still no luck getting these to register with 4.6
Phones are showing "network failure" in the registration status and
seeing timeouts reaching the sipx box.
Network config (including DNS) in phones is the same as when they pull
configs from 4.4 (seen via phone HTTP interface in both cases.)
I think the thing you are leaving out is the phone config generated by
sipx can load a different DNS setting than what you intended, which is why
I suggested this deployment option to avoid a conflicting configuration on
the UA itself.
OK, that helps.
I'll take another a look at the Snom XML configs. When I diffed them on
<ntp_server perm="R"></ntp_server> <ntp_server perm="R">pool.ntp.org
</ntp_server>
<user_pass idx="1" perm="R">123456789012</user_pass> <user_pass
idx="1" perm="R">12355678</user_pass>
</user_moh>

_______________________________________________
sipx-users mailing list
List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tony Graziano, Manager
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/tony-graziano/14/4a6/7a4
Ask about our Internet Fax services!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Using or developing for sipXecs from SIPFoundry? Ask me about sipX-CoLab
2013!
<http://sipxcolab2013.eventbrite.com/?discount=tony2013>
Telephone: [phone]
Helpdesk Customers: http://myhelp.myitdepartment.**net<http://myhelp.myitdepartment.net>
Blog: http://blog.myitdepartment.net
_______________________________________________
sipx-users mailing list
List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/

--
Michael Picher, Director of Technical Services
eZuce, Inc.

300 Brickstone Square****

Suite 201****

Andover, MA. 01810
O.978-296-1005 X2015
M.207-956-0262
@mpicher <http://twitter.com/mpicher>
linkedin <http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=35504760&trk=tab_pro>
www.ezuce.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are 10 kinds of people in the world, those who understand binary and
those who don't.

[Tony Graziano]

maybe... maybe not. if the ntp times because of the way it is configured
(assuming it is misconfigured) out will the snom boot and register? Kind of
brings the "why ntp is built into sipx to begin with" argument back...

Post by Michael Picher
that shouldn't cause a network error with the phone though...
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 4:22 PM, Tony Graziano <

Post by Tony Graziano
broadworks uri standard.
I don't know which is the 4.4 or 4.6 in the email you sent. obviously if
the system was using the hostname and had doublequotes, all bets are off.
I am not sure what your ultimate aim is, we have 4.4 in production with
no real issues. 4.6 is being actively worked on. if you are trying to press
something into production, 4.4 would be "safe" at this time.

Post by Kurt Albershardt
Diffs are below -- first two are expected but don't know much about the MOH URI.
I don't use snom's but if you could compare the two sipx generated
config files to see what is different between them, if anything, it would
be worth the look.

Post by Kurt Albershardt
Still no luck getting these to register with 4.6
Phones are showing "network failure" in the registration status and
seeing timeouts reaching the sipx box.
Network config (including DNS) in phones is the same as when they pull
configs from 4.4 (seen via phone HTTP interface in both cases.)
I think the thing you are leaving out is the phone config generated by
sipx can load a different DNS setting than what you intended, which is why
I suggested this deployment option to avoid a conflicting configuration on
the UA itself.
OK, that helps.
I'll take another a look at the Snom XML configs. When I diffed them
<ntp_server perm="R"></ntp_server> <ntp_server perm="R">pool.ntp.org
</ntp_server>
<user_pass idx="1" perm="R">123456789012</user_pass> <user_pass
idx="1" perm="R">12355678</user_pass>
</user_moh>

_______________________________________________
sipx-users mailing list
List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tony Graziano, Manager
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/tony-graziano/14/4a6/7a4
Ask about our Internet Fax services!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Using or developing for sipXecs from SIPFoundry? Ask me about sipX-CoLab
2013!
<http://sipxcolab2013.eventbrite.com/?discount=tony2013>
Telephone: [phone]
Helpdesk Customers: http://myhelp.myitdepartment.**net<http://myhelp.myitdepartment.net>
Blog: http://blog.myitdepartment.net
_______________________________________________
sipx-users mailing list
List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/

--
Michael Picher, Director of Technical Services
eZuce, Inc.
300 Brickstone Square****
Suite 201****
Andover, MA. 01810
O.978-296-1005 X2015
M.207-956-0262
@mpicher <http://twitter.com/mpicher>
linkedin <http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=35504760&trk=tab_pro>
www.ezuce.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are 10 kinds of people in the world, those who understand binary and
those who don't.
_______________________________________________
sipx-users mailing list
List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tony Graziano, Manager
Telephone: [phone]
sip: ***@voice.myitdepartment.net
Fax: [phone]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Linked-In Profile:
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/tony-graziano/14/4a6/7a4
Ask about our Internet Fax services!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Using or developing for sipXecs from SIPFoundry? Ask me about sipX-CoLab
2013!
<http://sipxcolab2013.eventbrite.com/?discount=tony2013>

[Kurt Albershardt]

FYI, left side of my diff was 4.4, right side was 4.6

So it's 4.4 (which works) which has the empty <ntp_server> param.

Hopefully someone else with a Snom on site will test a 4.6 install.


The Snom problem predates the double quotes bug.

maybe... maybe not. if the ntp times because of the way it is configured (assuming it is misconfigured) out will the snom boot and register? Kind of brings the "why ntp is built into sipx to begin with" argument back...
that shouldn't cause a network error with the phone though...
I don't know which is the 4.4 or 4.6 in the email you sent. obviously if the system was using the hostname and had doublequotes, all bets are off.
I am not sure what your ultimate aim is, we have 4.4 in production with no real issues. 4.6 is being actively worked on. if you are trying to press something into production, 4.4 would be "safe" at this time.
Diffs are below -- first two are expected but don't know much about the MOH URI.

I don't use snom's but if you could compare the two sipx generated config files to see what is different between them, if anything, it would be worth the look.
Still no luck getting these to register with 4.6
Phones are showing "network failure" in the registration status and seeing timeouts reaching the sipx box.
Network config (including DNS) in phones is the same as when they pull configs from 4.4 (seen via phone HTTP interface in both cases.)

Post by Kurt Albershardt

I think the thing you are leaving out is the phone config generated by sipx can load a different DNS setting than what you intended, which is why I suggested this deployment option to avoid a conflicting configuration on the UA itself.

OK, that helps.
<ntp_server perm="R"></ntp_server> <ntp_server perm="R">pool.ntp.org</ntp_server>
<user_pass idx="1" perm="R">123456789012</user_pass> <user_pass idx="1" perm="R">12355678</user_pass>

_______________________________________________
sipx-users mailing list
List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tony Graziano, Manager
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/tony-graziano/14/4a6/7a4
Ask about our Internet Fax services!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Using or developing for sipXecs from SIPFoundry? Ask me about sipX-CoLab 2013!
Telephone: [phone]
Helpdesk Customers: http://myhelp.myitdepartment.net
Blog: http://blog.myitdepartment.net
_______________________________________________
sipx-users mailing list
List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/
--
Michael Picher, Director of Technical Services
eZuce, Inc.
300 Brickstone Square
Suite 201
Andover, MA. 01810
O.978-296-1005 X2015
M.207-956-0262
@mpicher <http://twitter.com/mpicher>
linkedin
www.ezuce.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are 10 kinds of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
_______________________________________________
sipx-users mailing list
List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tony Graziano, Manager
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/tony-graziano/14/4a6/7a4
Ask about our Internet Fax services!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Using or developing for sipXecs from SIPFoundry? Ask me about sipX-CoLab 2013!
Telephone: [phone]
Helpdesk Customers: http://myhelp.myitdepartment.net
Blog: http://blog.myitdepartment.net
_______________________________________________
sipx-users mailing list
List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/

[Kurt Albershardt]

Pfsense has a plugin for version 1.2.3 to hand out tftp. Version 2.x can hand out boot server natively.

Thanks . 1.2.3 has been so little trouble for so long, but 2.x is on a CF card waiting for a day to deploy.

I'm not a snom fan and don't have one hear to test with otherwise I could provide better guidance.

I've used mostly Cisco and Polycom in the past. Polycom was my initial choice for this, but Snom kept getting good marks from people I know and trust so I figured I'd get my feet wet.

I would install sipx as a subdomain (I.e. uc.sipdomain.TLD). I would point the firewall DNS forwarder for both the host and subdomain to sipx and let sipx run its own DNS.

That was actually where I was originally headed. Somehow I did not manage to read enough clear documentation indicating that DNS was completely under the control of sipx.

I would not hard code the phones AT ALL.

Check.

[Kurt Albershardt]

I would install sipx as a subdomain (I.e. uc.sipdomain.TLD). I would point the firewall DNS forwarder for both the host and subdomain to sipx and let sipx run its own DNS.

Working towards that now, and I have been using sipx.domain.com as the subdomain from the beginning.

Zone files for both sipx.domain.com and domain.com were created in /var/named/ by the system and I'm curious whether I should merge the domain.com info into the external authoritative NS for the domain, or keep the split horizon this effectively creates?

Please verify the DNS zone is running. It sounds like DNS is not working. There is a known issue with DNS in regard to the build. If it is not running please change the zone serial number to YYYYMMDDXX save the zone and ensure named is running then try again.

named was indeed not running on the 4.6 box. It started up OK from the init script and is resolving properly.

[Tony Graziano]

if the default sipdomain is: sipx.domain.com then there should be no
zone file for "domain.com". Normally you would create a forward zone
for "domain.com" and point it to its authoritative server.

Post by Tony Graziano
I would install sipx as a subdomain (I.e. uc.sipdomain.TLD). I would point
the firewall DNS forwarder for both the host and subdomain to sipx and let
sipx run its own DNS.
Working towards that now, and I have been using sipx.domain.com as the
subdomain from the beginning.
Zone files for both sipx.domain.com and domain.com were created in
/var/named/ by the system and I'm curious whether I should merge the
domain.com info into the external authoritative NS for the domain, or keep
the split horizon this effectively creates?
Please verify the DNS zone is running. It sounds like DNS is not working.
There is a known issue with DNS in regard to the build. If it is not running
please change the zone serial number to YYYYMMDDXX save the zone and ensure
named is running then try again.
named was indeed not running on the 4.6 box. It started up OK from the init
script and is resolving properly.
_______________________________________________
sipx-users mailing list
List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tony Graziano, Manager
Telephone: [phone]
sip: ***@voice.myitdepartment.net
Fax: [phone]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Linked-In Profile:
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/tony-graziano/14/4a6/7a4
Ask about our Internet Fax services!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Using or developing for sipXecs from SIPFoundry? Ask me about sipX-CoLab 2013!

[Kurt Albershardt]

4.6 install was done on a clean OS build and only ran the setup script once. I answered questions with sipx.domain.com only, other than the main domain.

Just re-ran the setup script on a clean install of today's package release and it only created one (sipx.domain.com) zonefile.

Post by Tony Graziano
if the default sipdomain is: sipx.domain.com then there should be no
zone file for "domain.com". Normally you would create a forward zone
for "domain.com" and point it to its authoritative server.

Post by Kurt Albershardt
I have been using sipx.domain.com as the
subdomain from the beginning.
Zone files for both sipx.domain.com and domain.com were created in
/var/named/ by the system and I'm curious whether I should merge the
domain.com info into the external authoritative NS for the domain, or keep
the split horizon this effectively creates?

[Kurt Albershardt]

I'd suggest putting the proxy and registrar log levels to debug and inspecting them when you try to register.

Debug was pretty noisy last time I tried it, so I started with setting both at info.

sipregistrar.log had no events generated corresponding to the tcpdump packets I was watching in another window.

sipXproxy.log does have some concurrent events, but I don't know how to interpret them yet. They do seem to point to a DNS issue, but I'm not clear what is missing.

tcpdump shows:
18:34:40.821907 IP 192.168.44.212.dls-monitor > sipx.murray-hotel.com.sip: SIP, length: 614
18:34:41.305962 IP 192.168.44.212.dls-monitor > sipx.murray-hotel.com.sip: SIP, length: 614
18:34:41.306582 IP sipx.murray-hotel.com.sip > 192.168.44.212.dls-monitor: SIP, length: 290
18:34:48.823609 IP sipx.murray-hotel.com.sip > 192.168.44.212.dls-monitor: SIP, length: 359
18:35:49.742426 IP 192.168.44.212.dls-monitor > sipx.murray-hotel.com.sip: SIP, length: 614
18:35:50.226479 IP 192.168.44.212.dls-monitor > sipx.murray-hotel.com.sip: SIP, length: 614
18:35:50.227057 IP sipx.murray-hotel.com.sip > 192.168.44.212.dls-monitor: SIP, length: 290
18:35:57.744031 IP sipx.murray-hotel.com.sip > 192.168.44.212.dls-monitor: SIP, length: 359


While sipXproxy.log (which appears to use UCT rather than localtime) has:
"2012-07-18T00:35:02.725196Z":482:SIP:WARNING:sipx.murray-hotel.com:SipRouter-15:41C15940:SipXProxy:"SipTransaction::recurseDnsSrvChildren no valid DNS records found for sendTo sip:'sipx.murray-hotel.com':5070 proto = 'TCP'"
"2012-07-18T00:35:02.725223Z":483:SIP:WARNING:sipx.murray-hotel.com:SipRouter-15:41C15940:SipXProxy:"SipTransaction::recurseDnsSrvChildren Returning false: 0x7fae30021850 isrecursing False mIsServerTransaction = 0, mIsDnsSrvChild = 0, mpDnsDestinations = 0x7fae3002bff8, mpDnsDestinations[0].isValidServerT() = 0, mpRequest = 0x7fae3002da20"
"2012-07-18T00:35:02.725241Z":484:SIP:WARNING:sipx.murray-hotel.com:SipRouter-15:41C15940:SipXProxy:"SipUserAgent::send returning false"
"2012-07-18T00:35:21.090073Z":485:SIP:WARNING:sipx.murray-hotel.com:SipRouter-15:41C15940:SipXProxy:"SipTransaction::recurseDnsSrvChildren no valid DNS records found for sendTo sip:'sipx.murray-hotel.com':5070 proto = 'TCP'"
"2012-07-18T00:35:21.090099Z":486:SIP:WARNING:sipx.murray-hotel.com:SipRouter-15:41C15940:SipXProxy:"SipTransaction::recurseDnsSrvChildren Returning false: 0x7fae3000b700 isrecursing False mIsServerTransaction = 0, mIsDnsSrvChild = 0, mpDnsDestinations = 0x7fae3002de58, mpDnsDestinations[0].isValidServerT() = 0, mpRequest = 0x7fae30008120"
"2012-07-18T00:35:21.090126Z":487:SIP:WARNING:sipx.murray-hotel.com:SipRouter-15:41C15940:SipXProxy:"SipUserAgent::send returning false"
"2012-07-18T00:35:39.441735Z":488:SIP:WARNING:sipx.murray-hotel.com:SipRouter-15:41C15940:SipXProxy:"SipTransaction::recurseDnsSrvChildren no valid DNS records found for sendTo sip:'sipx.murray-hotel.com':5070 proto = 'TCP'"
"2012-07-18T00:35:39.441753Z":489:SIP:WARNING:sipx.murray-hotel.com:SipRouter-15:41C15940:SipXProxy:"SipTransaction::recurseDnsSrvChildren Returning false: 0x7fae3002c8b0 isrecursing False mIsServerTransaction = 0, mIsDnsSrvChild = 0, mpDnsDestinations = 0x7fae3002bfc8, mpDnsDestinations[0].isValidServerT() = 0, mpRequest = 0x7fae3002c190"
"2012-07-18T00:35:39.441771Z":490:SIP:WARNING:sipx.murray-hotel.com:SipRouter-15:41C15940:SipXProxy:"SipUserAgent::send returning false"
"2012-07-18T00:35:49.743732Z":491:SIP:WARNING:sipx.murray-hotel.com:SipRouter-15:41C15940:SipXProxy:"SipTransaction::recurseDnsSrvChildren no valid DNS records found for sendTo sip:'sipx.murray-hotel.com':5070 proto = 'TCP'"
"2012-07-18T00:35:49.743758Z":492:SIP:WARNING:sipx.murray-hotel.com:SipRouter-15:41C15940:SipXProxy:"SipTransaction::recurseDnsSrvChildren Returning false: 0x7fae30028970 isrecursing False mIsServerTransaction = 0, mIsDnsSrvChild = 0, mpDnsDestinations = 0x7fae3002eda8, mpDnsDestinations[0].isValidServerT() = 0, mpRequest = 0x7fae3002d850"
"2012-07-18T00:35:49.743775Z":493:SIP:WARNING:sipx.murray-hotel.com:SipRouter-15:41C15940:SipXProxy:"SipUserAgent::send returning false"
"2012-07-18T00:35:54.112673Z":494:SIP:WARNING:sipx.murray-hotel.com:SipRouter-15:41C15940:SipXProxy:"SipTransaction::recurseDnsSrvChildren no valid DNS records found for sendTo sip:'sipx.murray-hotel.com':5070 proto = 'TCP'"
"2012-07-18T00:35:54.112698Z":495:SIP:WARNING:sipx.murray-hotel.com:SipRouter-15:41C15940:SipXProxy:"SipTransaction::recurseDnsSrvChildren Returning false: 0x7fae3001f980 isrecursing False mIsServerTransaction = 0, mIsDnsSrvChild = 0, mpDnsDestinations = 0x7fae30017038, mpDnsDestinations[0].isValidServerT() = 0, mpRequest = 0x7fae3002b6e0"
"2012-07-18T00:35:54.112714Z":496:SIP:WARNING:sipx.murray-hotel.com:SipRouter-15:41C15940:SipXProxy:"SipUserAgent::send returning false"
"2012-07-18T00:35:57.558554Z":497:SIP:WARNING:sipx.murray-hotel.com:SipRouter-15:41C15940:SipXProxy:"SipTransaction::recurseDnsSrvChildren no valid DNS records found for sendTo sip:'sipx.murray-hotel.com':5070 proto = 'TCP'"
"2012-07-18T00:35:57.558580Z":498:SIP:WARNING:sipx.murray-hotel.com:SipRouter-15:41C15940:SipXProxy:"SipTransaction::recurseDnsSrvChildren Returning false: 0x1400300 isrecursing False mIsServerTransaction = 0, mIsDnsSrvChild = 0, mpDnsDestinations = 0x13c4eb8, mpDnsDestinations[0].isValidServerT() = 0, mpRequest = 0x14010a0"
"2012-07-18T00:35:57.558598Z":499:SIP:WARNING:sipx.murray-hotel.com:SipRouter-15:41C15940:SipXProxy:"SipUserAgent::send returning false"
"2012-07-18T00:35:57.774526Z":500:SIP:WARNING:sipx.murray-hotel.com:SipRouter-15:41C15940:SipXProxy:"SipTransaction::recurseDnsSrvChildren no valid DNS records found for sendTo sip:'sipx.murray-hotel.com':5070 proto = 'TCP'"
"2012-07-18T00:35:57.774550Z":501:SIP:WARNING:sipx.murray-hotel.com:SipRouter-15:41C15940:SipXProxy:"SipTransaction::recurseDnsSrvChildren Returning false: 0x1419000 isrecursing False mIsServerTransaction = 0, mIsDnsSrvChild = 0, mpDnsDestinations = 0x13fd0f8, mpDnsDestinations[0].isValidServerT() = 0, mpRequest = 0x141a130"
"2012-07-18T00:35:57.774566Z":502:SIP:WARNING:sipx.murray-hotel.com:SipRouter-15:41C15940:SipXProxy:"SipUserAgent::send returning false"

[Kurt Albershardt]

Post by Kurt Albershardt
"2012-07-18T00:35:02.725196Z":482:SIP:WARNING:sipx.murray-hotel.com:SipRouter-15:41C15940:SipXProxy:"SipTransaction::recurseDnsSrvChildren no valid DNS records found for sendTo sip:'sipx.murray-hotel.com':5070 proto = 'TCP'"
"2012-07-18T00:35:02.725223Z":483:SIP:WARNING:sipx.murray-hotel.com:SipRouter-15:41C15940:SipXProxy:"SipTransaction::recurseDnsSrvChildren Returning false: 0x7fae30021850 isrecursing False mIsServerTransaction = 0, mIsDnsSrvChild = 0, mpDnsDestinations = 0x7fae3002bff8, mpDnsDestinations[0].isValidServerT() = 0, mpRequest = 0x7fae3002da20"
"2012-07-18T00:35:02.725241Z":484:SIP:WARNING:sipx.murray-hotel.com:SipRouter-15:41C15940:SipXProxy:"SipUserAgent::send returning false"
"2012-07-18T00:35:21.090073Z":485:SIP:WARNING:sipx.murray-hotel.com:SipRouter-15:41C15940:SipXProxy:"SipTransaction::recurseDnsSrvChildren no valid DNS records found for sendTo sip:'sipx.murray-hotel.com':5070 proto = 'TCP'"

For the record, this was on 4.4, which was working before -- at least until I built a new server with a 'proper' resolv.conf file pointing at 127.0.0.1
Replacing 127.0.0.1 with 192.168.44.1 (which was the config from the default install) allows the phones to register.

Guess I'll try this on 4.6 next, though it defaults to 127.0.0.1