sr-users November 2003

sr-users@lists.kamailio.org

116 participants
267 discussions

[Serusers] FEW PBs urgent
by toto titi 04 Nov '03

04 Nov '03

Hi, I'm a newbie with SER (0.8.11 under FreeeBSD 4.9) and there are many points that I can't resolve: - I didn't find where SER store my "Windows Messenger 5.0 contact list" : file ? sql database ? (I have read something about a "Contacts table" !? no exist for me in the DB. - when a user open a session, he receive the status of their contacts but they will see him online only after nearly 10 mn (timeout problem ?). - when I use another pc, I can't get my "Windows Messenger 5.0 contact list" back... TIA Thierry (sorry for my poor english ;) _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail : un compte GRATUIT qui vous suit partout et tout le temps ! http://g.msn.fr/FR1000/9493

2 1

[Serusers] SER w/MySQL install no problems
by vm1000 04 Nov '03

04 Nov '03

SER w/MySQL install no problems ser 0.8.11 on a RH 8.0 all ok CISCO GATEWAY all ok RADIUS authentication all ok Voicemail all ok -------------------- voice lab inc. saitama japan. --------------------

1 0

RE: [Serusers] rtpproxy question
by Klaus Darilion 03 Nov '03

03 Nov '03

I like Maxims idea of inserting a flag in the SDP body most, because it seems to be easy to implement. The drawback is that all SIP providers have to support it - but this problem also occours with the other solutions. regards, klaus > -----Original Message----- > From: Jan Janak [mailto:jan@iptel.org] > Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 7:11 PM > To: Klaus Darilion > Cc: Maxim Sobolev; serusers(a)lists.iptel.org > Subject: Re: [Serusers] rtpproxy question > > > I think the solution is to modify the RTP proxy. The RTP > proxy should be > symmetric only for user agents that belong to the domain of the proxy > and if the other direction is a foreign user, it should send > the data to > the IP taken from SDP and not wait for any incomming packets. > > Let's take iptel.org as a hypothetical example: > > If both caller and callee have iptel.org as their domain, the > RTP proxy > will work as usual. > > If caller is not from iptel.org but callee is, then the SIP proxy will > pass IP of the NAT box (known from Contact in usrloc) and IP > from SDP of > INVITE to RTP proxy. The RTP proxy will be symmetric for the > NAT IP and > non-symmetric for the IP from SDP. > > In the reverse direction, i.e. when callee is not from iptel.org and > caller is (i.e. the invite is coming from iptel.org to fwd, for > example), the SIP proxy will pass IP from the received > parameter for the > "symmetric side" and IP from SDP of 200 OK for the > "non-symmetric part". > > That way it is not ensured that there is just one RTP proxy > along the path, > but it should work. > > In other words, every SIP proxy provides "symmetric RTP proxy" for its > users only, it doesn't provide it for foreign users. > > Drawback of this approach is that it is not possible to use > only one RTP > proxy in cases like: > > UA---NAT---Sipphone---iptel.org---NAT---UA > > In that case both Sipphone and iptel.org must enforce RTP proxy, each > proxy is responsible for getting their users through NAT. > > Anyway, implement and deploy something like that is quite complex. > > Jan. > > On 03-11 18:49, Klaus Darilion wrote: > > But if UA1 ist not behind NAT, proxy 2 should activated its > rtpproxy to > > enable a communciation although there are more than 2 Via headers. > > > > I guess there is no solution yet which will work in all > scenarios as one > > SIP proxy will never know the NAT-traversal strategy of > other proxies. > > > > regards, > > klaus > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Maxim Sobolev [mailto:sobomax@portaone.com] > > > Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 6:40 PM > > > To: Jan Janak > > > Cc: Klaus Darilion; serusers(a)lists.iptel.org > > > Subject: Re: [Serusers] rtpproxy question > > > > > > > > > There is another possible solution: modify nathelper to only > > > apply RTP > > > proxy redirection if there is only one Via in the > request. This will > > > ensure that in the situation when there are multiple SIP/RTP > > > proxies in > > > the path only first one will handle RTP. Unfortunately it > > > will not help > > > if there are any SIP B2BUAs on the way. > > > > > > -Maxim > > > > > > Jan Janak wrote: > > > > On 03-11 19:18, Maxim Sobolev wrote: > > > > > > > >>Klaus Darilion wrote: > > > >> > > > >> > > > >>>Hi! > > > >>> > > > >>>As the RTP relaying does not work with 2 RTP proxies, how > > > can a proxy > > > >>>detect > > > >>>if the RTP stream is already redirected to an RTP proxy? > > > >>> > > > >>>My problem is the following scenario: > > > >>> > > > >>>UA1 --NAT-- SIP proxy 1 -- SIP proxy 2 --NAT-- UA2 > > > >>> rtpproxy1 rtpproxy2 > > > >>> > > > >>>UA1 invites UA2. SIP proxy 1 detects that UA1 is behind > > > NAT and enables the > > > >>>rtpproxy1 and forwards the invite to SIP proxy2. SIP proxy > > > 2 knows that UA2 > > > >>>is also behind NAT. Usually, SIP proxy 2 would activate > > > the rtpproxy2, but > > > >>>in this case this would not work as there is already an > > > rtpproxy involved. > > > >>>How can the SIP proxy 2 detect that the IP address in the > > > SDP is the IP > > > >>>address of an RTP proxy? > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >>Known problem. I think that I'll modify nathelper, so that > > > >>force_rtp_proxy() will insert some flag into the SDP body, > > > which will > > > >>tell other proxies along the request route that there is no > > > need to put > > > >>another RTP relay into the RTP path. > > > > > > > > > > > > Another option would be to insert a header field telling > > > that another > > > > RTP proxy is being used already. > > > > > > > > The problem is that both solutions (header field and SDP > > > flags) will > > > > be not interoperable. > > > > > > > > Another option would be to modify the RTP proxy so > that it will be > > > > symmetric only for user agents that belong to the domain > > > of the proxy. > > > > That would probably complicate things a bit. > > > > > > > > Jan. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

3 2

RE: [Serusers] rtpproxy question
by Klaus Darilion 03 Nov '03

03 Nov '03

But if UA1 ist not behind NAT, proxy 2 should activated its rtpproxy to enable a communciation although there are more than 2 Via headers. I guess there is no solution yet which will work in all scenarios as one SIP proxy will never know the NAT-traversal strategy of other proxies. regards, klaus > -----Original Message----- > From: Maxim Sobolev [mailto:sobomax@portaone.com] > Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 6:40 PM > To: Jan Janak > Cc: Klaus Darilion; serusers(a)lists.iptel.org > Subject: Re: [Serusers] rtpproxy question > > > There is another possible solution: modify nathelper to only > apply RTP > proxy redirection if there is only one Via in the request. This will > ensure that in the situation when there are multiple SIP/RTP > proxies in > the path only first one will handle RTP. Unfortunately it > will not help > if there are any SIP B2BUAs on the way. > > -Maxim > > Jan Janak wrote: > > On 03-11 19:18, Maxim Sobolev wrote: > > > >>Klaus Darilion wrote: > >> > >> > >>>Hi! > >>> > >>>As the RTP relaying does not work with 2 RTP proxies, how > can a proxy > >>>detect > >>>if the RTP stream is already redirected to an RTP proxy? > >>> > >>>My problem is the following scenario: > >>> > >>>UA1 --NAT-- SIP proxy 1 -- SIP proxy 2 --NAT-- UA2 > >>> rtpproxy1 rtpproxy2 > >>> > >>>UA1 invites UA2. SIP proxy 1 detects that UA1 is behind > NAT and enables the > >>>rtpproxy1 and forwards the invite to SIP proxy2. SIP proxy > 2 knows that UA2 > >>>is also behind NAT. Usually, SIP proxy 2 would activate > the rtpproxy2, but > >>>in this case this would not work as there is already an > rtpproxy involved. > >>>How can the SIP proxy 2 detect that the IP address in the > SDP is the IP > >>>address of an RTP proxy? > >>> > >>> > >> > >>Known problem. I think that I'll modify nathelper, so that > >>force_rtp_proxy() will insert some flag into the SDP body, > which will > >>tell other proxies along the request route that there is no > need to put > >>another RTP relay into the RTP path. > > > > > > Another option would be to insert a header field telling > that another > > RTP proxy is being used already. > > > > The problem is that both solutions (header field and SDP > flags) will > > be not interoperable. > > > > Another option would be to modify the RTP proxy so that it will be > > symmetric only for user agents that belong to the domain > of the proxy. > > That would probably complicate things a bit. > > > > Jan. > > > > > > >

2 1

Re: [Serusers] HELP HELP HELP. I WANT TO USE CISCO GATEWAY!!!!
by Alexandru Deac 03 Nov '03

03 Nov '03

On Monday 03 November 2003 00:37, you wrote: > You are the best alex. You have solved half of my problems already. I now > know what to do at the cisco end of things. But I need to know what I > should do if I only want several cisco gateways to talk to each other. You'll have to write all the routing loging into ser.cfg For example let's say have a gateway terminate 1+ calls (north america) and another one terminate international calls, so you could have something like this in your ser.cfg <snip> if(uri ~= "1[1-9][0-9]+@.*") { /* north american call */ rewritehostport("xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:5060") /* ip of north american box */ } else if (uri ~="011[0-9][0-9]+@.*") { /* international */ rewritehostport("yyy.yyy.yyy.yyy:5060") /* ip of intl. box */ } else { // fall thru logic here } /* forward the request to the proper gateway */ if(!t_relay()) { sl_reply_error(); break; } </snip> > How > do I put phone numbers on the SIP server and not username and passwords > especially with the fact that cisco gateway doesn't register with SIP > server. Just make the username numeric only or if you prefer add a numeric alias for each of your usernames. You can always disable authentication in ser.cfg or allow certain IP addresses to get thru without authentication. Look at the www(proxy)_authorize(challenge) > (How can I be adding phone numbers/IP address listings of the > gateways to the SIP server without creating users) Even tho the CISCO boxes don't register on their own, you can manually register them on the SER box by using the serctl utility. That way other UAs can dial-up the CISCO box to listen to an IVR for example. > Thanks, > AKIN > Hope it helps if not just email me back :) Alex.

1 0

[Serusers] rtpproxy question
by Klaus Darilion 03 Nov '03

03 Nov '03

Hi! As the RTP relaying does not work with 2 RTP proxies, how can a proxy detect if the RTP stream is already redirected to an RTP proxy? My problem is the following scenario: UA1 --NAT-- SIP proxy 1 -- SIP proxy 2 --NAT-- UA2 rtpproxy1 rtpproxy2 UA1 invites UA2. SIP proxy 1 detects that UA1 is behind NAT and enables the rtpproxy1 and forwards the invite to SIP proxy2. SIP proxy 2 knows that UA2 is also behind NAT. Usually, SIP proxy 2 would activate the rtpproxy2, but in this case this would not work as there is already an rtpproxy involved. How can the SIP proxy 2 detect that the IP address in the SDP is the IP address of an RTP proxy? regards, Klaus

3 4

RE: [Serusers] External Proxies
by Urvish Khandwalla 03 Nov '03

03 Nov '03

Thanks Nils, What about external proxy services offered by SER? Any help on that? regards, --UV -----Original Message----- From: Nils Ohlmeier [mailto:nils@iptel.org] Sent: Mon 11/3/2003 11:32 AM To: Urvish Khandwalla (Colorado EDU); serusers(a)iptel.org Cc: Subject: Re: [Serusers] External Proxies Hello, On Monday 03 November 2003 17:29, Urvish Khandwalla wrote: > I am trying to study the way SER control ports to an external firewall > using FCP. is there any documentation on it? no there is no documentation available, because FCP does not work reliable. And because of that FCP is not public availbale yet. Regards Nils _______________________________________________ Serusers mailing list Serusers(a)iptel.org http://mail.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers

1 0

[Serusers] External Proxies
by Urvish Khandwalla 03 Nov '03

03 Nov '03

Hi, I am trying to study the way SER control ports to an external firewall using FCP. is there any documentation on it? Thanks in advance, regards, Urvish

2 1

Re: [Serusers] SER w/MySQL install problems
by Jon Ole Nome 03 Nov '03

03 Nov '03

I've tested some more. If I start with default ser.cfg (without mysql support) everything is ok. If I uncomment the line loadmodule "/usr/lib/ser/modules/mysql.so" then /etc/rc.d/init.d/ser start responds with OK, but if I try ser status afterwards it responds with "ser dead but subsystem locked". The parse errors came from replacing "if (uri==myself)" with "if (uri=~avitrans.aero). The HOWTO said that I should do this. Any ideas? Thanks! Jon Ole ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul" <pelinescu-onciul(a)fokus.fraunhofer.de>loadmodule "/usr/lib/ser/modules/mysql.so" To: "Jon Ole Nome" <jonome(a)avitrans.no> Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2003 10:46 PM Subject: Re: [Serusers] SER w/MySQL install problems > On Nov 02, 2003 at 22:00, Jon Ole Nome <jonome(a)avitrans.no> wrote: > > This is what's in /var/log/messages: > > > > Nov 2 21:59:30 tailrotor ser: parse error (100,19-20): parse error > This means you have a bad command at line 100, chars./columns 19-20. > > > Nov 2 21:59:30 tailrotor ser: parse error (100,19-20): bad command > > Nov 2 21:59:30 tailrotor ser: parse error (100,19-20): bad command > > Nov 2 21:59:30 tailrotor ser: parse error (100,23-24): bad command > > Nov 2 21:59:30 tailrotor ser: parse error (100,23-24): bad command > > Nov 2 21:59:30 tailrotor ser: parse error (100,25-26): bad command > > Nov 2 21:59:30 tailrotor ser: parse error (119,3-4): parse error > > Nov 2 21:59:30 tailrotor ser: parse error (119,3-4): > > Nov 2 21:59:30 tailrotor ser: ERROR: bad config file (8 errors) > > Nov 2 21:59:30 tailrotor ser: ser startup failed > > Look into your cfg at lines 100 and 119. > > Andrei

2 2

[Serusers] RADIUS authentication: draft-sterman-aaa-sip
by Jiri Kuthan 03 Nov '03

03 Nov '03

Unfortunately, there is now no standard for use of RADIUS along with SIP. SER users leveraging the combination of these two technologies are left with implementation of expired internet drafts. There are some chances that the IETF community revitalizes the document. Thus, I would appreciate hearing if any of the active RADIUS/SIP/SER users have had any issues with the RADIUS authentication in SER, which is based on draft-sterman-aaa-sip. Thanks, -jiri -- Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/

4 6

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

sr-users November 2003