Cisco Support Community
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Announcements

Welcome to Cisco Support Community. We would love to have your feedback.

For an introduction to the new site, click here. And see here for current known issues.

mgcp registration issue

I have a mgcp gateway(2811), which has been in service for over a year. Mgcp registration is flapping between the publisher and subscriber about every 10-15 seconds, which does not give the T1 a chance to come up. I also have 4 fxs ports on the gateway. The PRI is testing ok. With a loopback plug the gateway still flaps. With the PRI disconnected the gateway is stable and it shows the fxs ports registered to the publisher. A debug mgcp packets shows

*Sep 5 15:24:40.071: MGCP Packet received from 10.20.0.11:2427--->

200 720225718

<---

*Sep 5 15:24:40.071: [S] mgcp_msg_ack:6059,Updating (*)=10.20.0.11

*Sep 5 15:24:40.075: *:NO-MATCH, 10.20.0.12:2427, 10.20.0.11:2427

*Sep 5 15:24:40.075: S0/SU*/DS1-*/*:NO-MATCH, 10.20.0.12:2427, 10.20.0.11:2427

*Sep 5 15:24:40.075: S0/SU0/DS1-*/*:NO-MATCH, 10.20.0.12:2427, 10.20.0.11:2427

*Sep 5 15:24:40.075: S0/SU0/DS1-0/*:NO-MATCH, 10.20.0.12:2427, 10.20.0.11:2427

*Sep 5 15:24:40.075: S0/SU0/DS1-0/1:NO-MATCH, 10.20.0.12:2427, 10.20.0.11:2427

*Sep 5 15:24:40.075: S0/SU0/DS1-0/2:NO-MATCH, 10.20.0.12:2427, 10.20.0.11:2427

*Sep 5 15:24:40.075: S0/SU0/DS1-0/3:NO-MATCH, 10.20.0.12:2427, 10.20.0.11:2427

*Sep 5 15:24:40.075: S0/SU0/DS1-0/4:NO-MATCH, 10.20.0.12:2427, 10.20.0.11:2427

*Sep 5 15:24:40.075: S0/SU0/DS1-0/5:NO-MATCH, 10.20.0.12:2427, 10.20.0.11:2427

*Sep 5 15:24:40.075: S0/SU0/DS1-0/6:NO-MATCH, 10.20.0.12:2427, 10.20.0.11:2427

*Sep 5 15:24:40.075: S0/SU0/DS1-0/7:NO-MATCH, 10.20.0.12:2427, 10.20.0.11:2427

*Sep 5 15:24:40.075: S0/SU0/DS1-0/8:NO-MATCH, 10.20.0.12:2427, 10.20.0.11:2427

*Sep 5 15:24:40.075: S0/SU0/DS1-0/9:NO-MATCH, 10.20.0.12:2427, 10.20.0.11:2427

*Sep 5 15:24:40.075: S0/SU0/DS1-0/10:NO-MATCH, 10.20.0.12:2427, 10.20.0.11:2427

*Sep 5 15:24:40.075: S0/SU0/DS1-0/11:NO-MATCH, 10.20.0.12:2427, 10.20.0.11:2427

*Sep 5 15:24:40.075: S0/SU0/DS1-0/12:NO-MATCH, 10.20.0.12:2427, 10.20.0.11:2427

*Sep 5 15:24:40.075: S0/SU0/DS1-0/13:NO-MATCH, 10.20.0.12:2427, 10.20.0.11:2427

*Sep 5 15:24:40.075: S0/SU0/DS1-0/14:NO-MATCH, 10.20.0.12:2427, 10.20.0.11:2427

*Sep 5 15:24:40.075: S0/SU0/DS1-0/15:NO-MATCH, 10.20.0.12:2427, 10.20.0.11:2427

*Sep 5 15:24:40.075: S0/SU0/DS1-0/16:NO-MATCH, 10.20.0.12:2427, 10.20.0.11:2427

*Sep 5 15:24:40.075: S0/SU0/DS1-0/17:NO-MATCH, 10.20.0.12:2427, 10.20.0.11:2427

*Sep 5 15:24:40.075: S0/SU0/DS1-0/18:NO-MATCH, 10.20.0.12:2427, 10.20.0.11:2427

*Sep 5 15:24:40.075: S0/SU0/DS1-0/19:NO-MATCH, 10.20.0.12:2427, 10.20.0.11:2427

*Sep 5 15:24:40.075: S0/SU0/DS1-0/20:NO-MATCH, 10.20.0.12:2427, 10.20.0.11:2427

*Sep 5 15:24:40.075: S0/SU0/DS1-0/21:NO-MATCH, 10.20.0.12:2427, 10.20.0.11:2427

*Sep 5 15:24:40.075: S0/SU0/DS1-0/22:NO-MATCH, 10.20.0.12:2427, 10.20.0.11:2427

*Sep 5 15:24:40.075: S0/SU0/DS1-0/23:NO-MATCH, 10.20.0.12:2427, 10.20.0.11:2427

*Sep 5 15:24:40.075: aaln/S*/SU*/*:NO-MATCH, 10.20.0.12:2427, 10.20.0.11:2427

*Sep 5 15:24:40.075: aaln/S0/SU*/*:NO-MATCH, 10.20.0.12:2427, 10.20.0.11:2427

*Sep 5 15:24:40.075: aaln/S0/SU1/*:NO-MATCH, 10.20.0.12:2427, 10.20.0.11:2427

*Sep 5 15:24:40.075: aaln/S0/SU1/0:NO-MATCH, 10.20.0.12:2427, 10.20.0.11:2427

*Sep 5 15:24:40.075: aaln/S0/SU1/1:NO-MATCH, 10.20.0.12:2427, 10.20.0.11:2427

*Sep 5 15:24:40.075: aaln/S0/SU1/2:NO-MATCH, 10.20.0.12:2427, 10.20.0.11:2427

*Sep 5 15:24:40.075: aaln/S0/SU1/3:NO-MATCH, 10.20.0.12:2427, 10.20.0.11:2427

*Sep 5 15:24:40.179: MGCP Packet received from 10.20.0.12:2427--->

200 720225720

<---

*Sep 5 15:24:40.179: MGCP Packet received from 10.20.0.12:2427--->

RQNT 2038094 AALN/S0/SU1/0@Crescent_Commons_2811.Coastline.org MGCP 0.1

X: 2

R: L/hd

Q: process,loop

<---

*Sep 5 15:24:40.183: MGCP Packet sent to 10.20.0.12:2427--->

200 2038094 OK

<---

<---

We have ordered a new vwic card, hoping it is a bad card. Any help would greatly be appreciated!!

9 REPLIES
Green

Re: mgcp registration issue

Did you guys change hostname in router or in CUCM?

*Sep 5 15:24:40.075: S0/SU0/DS1-0/23:NO-MATCH, 10.20.0.12:2427, 10.20.0.11:2427

could you please send us the sh ccm-manager

Enable debug and bounce mgcp process so we can see whats happening from the beginning

Re: mgcp registration issue

No, we haven't changed the name, but I'll re-verify the name in both locations. If the gateway registers along with the 4 fxs ports with the Publisher, doesn't this indicate that the name has to be correct? I have bounced the mgcp process and attached the output. Sh ccm-manager shows the registration is flapping about every 30 seconds. IF you find a resolution, you will be my hero! Thanks in advance for any assistance.

New Member

Re: mgcp registration issue

can you send a copy of the config and a show ver

Re: mgcp registration issue

Here is the sh run and sh ver. Appreciate the help.

New Member

Re: mgcp registration issue

add this to mgcp section

mgcp bind control source-interface FastEthernet0/0.200

mgcp bind media source-interface FastEthernet0/0.200

also, are you absolutly sure that CM definiton for the gateway still points to the correct slots on your router for the PRIs? I assume they are both active.

Re: mgcp registration issue

Thank you for your response. I added mgcp bind control source-internal FastEthernet0/0.200 and the media command, unfortunately the registration is still flapping. I disabled mgcp and re enabled mgcp after I entered the commands.

New Member

Re: mgcp registration issue

reset from CM

if this is prior to v5 of CM look at the event viewer. What are you seeing relative to the registration. If after v5 then use remote monitor to get the same info.

Also, if you start buffered logging on the router are you seeing anything relative to the pri? From what you are saying, if you shut down the controllers the problem goes away. Do you have to disable both for the registration to stop flapping?

Lastly, can you access (https) the gateway from the publisher and subscriber to make sure there isn't some kind of replication problem. Does the definition look the same?

Green

Re: mgcp registration issue

Hi Charles,

Sorry for not updating before,

Since with loopback is still flapping and at the beginning it manages to register I believe problem may reside in CUCM side due to:

*Sep 6 20:35:08.045: MGCP Packet received from 10.20.0.11:2427--->

AUEP 2033722 S0/SU0/DS1-0/1@Crescent_Commons_2811.Coastline.org MGCP 0.1

F: X, A, I

<---

*Sep 6 20:35:08.049: MGCP Packet sent to 10.20.0.11:2427--->

200 2033722

I:

X: 0

L: p:10-20, a:PCMU;PCMA;G.nX64, b:64, e:on, gc:1, s:on, t:10, r:g, nt:IN;ATM;LOCAL, v:T;G;D;L;H;R;ATM;SST;PRE

L: p:10-220, a:G.729;G.729a;G.729b, b:8, e:on, gc:1, s:on, t:10, r:g, nt:IN;ATM;LOCAL, v:T;G;D;L;H;R;ATM;SST;PRE

L: p:10-110, a:G.726-16;G.728, b:16, e:on, gc:1, s:on, t:10, r:g, nt:IN;ATM;LOCAL, v:T;G;D;L;H;R;ATM;SST;PRE

L: p:10-70, a:G.726-24, b:24, e:on, gc:1, s:on, t:10, r:g, nt:IN;ATM;LOCAL, v:T;G;D;L;H;R;ATM;SST;PRE

L: p:10-50, a:G.726-32, b:32, e:on, gc:1, s:on, t:10, r:g, nt:IN;ATM;LOCAL, v:T;G;D;L;H;R;ATM;SST;PRE

L: p:30-270, a:G.723.1-H;G.723;G.723.1a-H, b:6, e:on, gc:1, s:on, t:10, r:g, nt:IN;ATM;LOCAL, v:T;G;D;L;H;R;ATM;SST;PRE

L: p:30-330, a:G.723.1-L;G.723.1a-L, b:5, e:on, gc:1, s:on, t:10, r:g, nt:IN;ATM;LOCAL, v:T;G;D;L;H;R;ATM;SST;PRE

M: sendonly, recvonly, sendrecv, inactive, loopback, conttest, data, netwloop, netwtest

CUCM and GW ack endpoint status.

then CUCM sends:

*Sep 6 20:35:20.161: S0/SU0/DS1-0/1:NO-MATCH, 10.20.0.12:2427, 10.20.0.11:2427

1.Could you please try firs disabling voice port:

S0/SU0/DS1-1 since were are still trying to resgiter it, and unconfigure it in CUCM

2. CUCM version and make sure replication is correct since we have seen this before when replication is not working.

Thanks

Re: mgcp registration issue

Thanks for the input. It is greatly appreciated. The problem is resolved. Last week someone added qos to int s0/3/0, which I assume was dropping the keepalives. I did not realize the qos was a recent change. :( We removed the qos and everything is fine!

584
Views
0
Helpful
9
Replies