FreePBX looks registered, but provider ignores call requests

Can you turn off diversion from PhonerLite?

Where are you capturing traffic? If not on the WAN side, is it possible to do that to confirm that the router is not changing the source port or doing a SIP ALG?

These are just guesses:

Remove sendrpid.
Try nat=never (to remove the rport).
Alternatively, set Local Networks so it uses private addresses like PhonerLite.

A few providers choke on maxptime=150 but there was an error response in all I’ve seen so that is pretty unlikely.

IMO if you can’t find this easily, try to get an INVITE sent from sipsak to get the expected 401 response and then tweak the headers one at a time to see what causes the lack of response.

BTW, does PhonerLite receive calls ok?

Still think you should give this a go with pjsip, at least for chuckles. It’s not much of a labor investment to configure.

1 Like

I agree with @billsimon that you should try pjsip. It’s easy to do and even if it doesn’t work but there’s an error response, that will simplify debugging.

Let’s make something clear here. This isn’t a hobbyist playing with FreePBX at home just to learn it or do some cool stuff. This is a user who has actively reversed engineered their providers CPE to mine the SIP creds and settings so they can attach a unauthorized device to the providers network.

Those two quotes are enough to show that the OP is well aware that what they are doing is not allowed, not wanted and violates their service agreement with their provider. So this is well beyond a hobbyist playing around. This has entered the realm of actively engaging in trying to connect a rogue device to a network. And yes, that is exactly what this is. The provider has made it very clear that this service is to be used in a specific manner and with approved devices. Putting any other device, including the softphone, would be considered a rogue device on any network.

So let’s get to the crux of this matter. The OP has a VoIP service that came bundled with their Internet packet. The OP doesn’t like the feature set of said service or the fact the service requires the use of analog devices. So instead of the OP just not using the service and getting a proper SIP Trunk provider that would all the OP to do all they want, they have decided to bypass the providers hand off and connect through a completely unauthorized manner using an unauthorized device.

The only proper answers to this is either use the service as intended or get a SIP Trunk provider that will give the OP the right service for what they are looking to do. Anything else is actively supporting the hacking of a providers network.

And seriously, what would happen if you got this to work? This is a 100% unsupportable. Three weeks, three months, whatever from now the OP can run into the same issues. Registrations don’t work and INVITEs are being ignored. So now they can’t get or make calls. Are you going to try and crack this nut again and figure out why it stopped working? Knowing full well that the provider could have made changes on their side that broke this hack OR actively blocked the OP.

Are you saying the topic simply shouldn’t be discussed? If so, perhaps use the Flag button and let the moderators decide.

Yes or any topic where the intent is to do something malicious.

Sure, if it takes that why not. @mattf @jcolp @lgaetz do we need to be told not to help, encourage or facilitate people hacking a providers network in the community forums?

Seriously, you used to run the Google Voice SIP<>XMPP service. You wouldn’t of had any issue of people in a forum discussing ways that they could have bypassed your network restrictions/security to do something you didn’t want or approve of on your network? I can’t seriously believe that to be the case.

The community (PBX/VoIP community in general, maybe not here) worked its collective butt off to get around the restrictions of Google voice when they bought it from Grand Central.

@Stewart1 @billsimon et al

Thank you so much for your support efforts.
It should not be this hard.
I’m giving up and moving to a more cooperative Service Provider.

And Tom RAY, No thanks to you for your negativity and self-righteousness. As I have said before, I’m not a black hat hacker. I’m a just trying to make best use of the tools I’m paying for and attempting to overcome the (perhaps) deliberate roadblocks imposed be the ISP. These restrictions are there to gouge more money for ZERO additional cost and functionality. And I’m sure the FreePBX community would be pleased to know you think that FreePBX is nothing more than a “rogue device”*

Anyway, the ISP has “won”. . . And as a result, I they will not be getting my $120/month contribution to their bottom line for much longer.

Thanks again and Case Closed.

1 Like

I’m not sure what that really means. However, when Google Voice went to SIP a couple years back the GVSIP thread that was here was eventually requested to be moved to some place else because it was helping using violate GV’s ToS. Then over at DSLReports, where the thread was living at that point Google Voice came in themselves and told people to stop as it violated their ToS. Even requests to pull in the GVSIP patches, etc were denied because of that fact.

I fully admitted that it was self-righteous because I’ve spent my career in the ISP/ITSP industry. It’s what I still am doing.

I never said you were, however, your actions are not free of wrong doing.

What? I never said that FreePBX is a rouge device. First off, FreePBX is not a device it’s software. Second off, I was referring to your actual PBX. See if doesn’t matter if it’s FreePBX, FusionPBX, 3CX or any other PBX. If the provider’s rule is that home voice must be through their device then any other device on the home voice network is not allowed and thus a rouge device. This is true for any network. If you have a work wifi network and the rule is no personal devices on the work wifi, if your personal cell phone ends up on the work wifi it’s a rogue device.

Please stop making it like a big bad won because their network is tight and you couldn’t hack around it to use it as you think you should be able to. You’re not the victim here.

Don’t know what was bundled for $120 but VoIP is likely $3 to $10 per month for a very busy single line DID at your house. Unfortunately it is likely that the same nice guys will subvert your sip traffic anyway if a cable modem (docsis) they still eff with SIP if a straight access, likely the same thing . . . Either way kudos for you ‘nearly getting there’. I doubt they care by what means you use their service, there is likely nothing that would impact their bottom line apart from you not using them anymore. Pragmatically you could attach an ata to the FXO but also pragmatically WTF, they get there money either way until you decide not.

Tom, you are absolutely correct. I’m not a victim, I’ll soon be an ex-customer

I’ve, I’ve done that. The increased latency and dial delay along withand decreased voice quality and reliability make it very 2nd rate. Thank again for trying. :+1:

I wasn’t saying it was a good thing , it is a stupid idea :wink: your solution I liked, but anywhichway you are better off dumping these guys if you have a feasible alternative

@dicko and @BlazeStudios are pillars of this community, I am suprised they even responded in the lengthy matters they did, @rastermus you seem to know all the answers already, why even ask for help?

This topic was automatically closed 31 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.