sr-users December 2003

sr-users@lists.kamailio.org

108 participants
257 discussions

by Santosh Subramanian, Noida

Hi, I have a client program , which will send REGISTER request to the proxy server and get back the response either "200 ok" or "401 unauthorized". I'm running SER proxy server in my local network and it is giving me "401 unauthorized". no problem in that. Now I'm trying to contact iptel.org with that program. Its since I'm running my program behind the firewall, the address and port (195.37.77.101:5060) is opened for me both ways. So my request should have reached iptel.org. Problem is, no response from iptel.org. can anyone working behind firewall send me the message format for REGISTER request. I've attached mine along with this mail.. kindly let me know if anything is wrong. I'm not able to proceed from this point. Kind Regards, Santhosh.S My Register Request: ===================== REGISTER sip:san.iptel.org:5060 SIP/2.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.14.56:5060;branch=z9hG4bK2952839661;rport From: san <sip:san@iptel.org>;tag=946143070 To: san <sip:san@iptel.org> Call-ID: 320799555(a)195.37.77.101 CSeq: 1 REGISTER Contact: san <sip:san@192.168.14.56:5060> max-forwards: 70 user-agent: oSIP-ua/0.8.1 expires: 3600 Content-Length: 0 where username is "san" My call flow shld. be: san SER Sip Server | | | REGISTER F1 | |------------------------------>| | 401 Unauthorized F2 | |<------------------------------| | REGISTER F3 | |------------------------------>| | 200 OK F4 | |<------------------------------| | |

20 years, 11 months

RE: [Serusers] Separate MySQL Server

by Klaus Darilion

Yes! no problem, you only have to configure the modules to use not the default db url: e.g. I use the mysql database on obelix.ict.tuwien.ac.at. modparam("usrloc", "db_url", "sql://ser:yourpassword@obelix.ict.tuwien.ac.at/ser") modparam("auth_db", "password_column", "password") modparam("auth_db", "db_url", "sql://ser:yourpassword@obelix.ict.tuwien.ac.at/ser") modparam("voicemail", "db_url","sql://ser:yourpassword@obelix.ict.tuwien.ac.at/ser") This works for ser 0.8.11, I think the syntax has changed in 0.8.12 to "mysql://ser:..." > -----Original Message----- > From: Antonio Rabena [mailto:antonio@lgatelecom.net] > Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 10:08 AM > To: serusers(a)lists.iptel.org > Subject: [Serusers] Separate MySQL Server > > > Hi, > > Is it possible to have a separate machine for SER and MySQL Server? > > > > Regards, > > > Antonio Rabena > LGA Telecom Pte Ltd > Tel: +65 6892 2308 > Fax: +65 6872 5668 > Email: antonio(a)lgatelecom.net > > _______________________________________________ > Serusers mailing list > serusers(a)lists.iptel.org > http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers > >

20 years, 11 months

RE: [Serusers] Re: Xten-RTPProxy choppy audio

by Klaus Darilion

Short summary: Maxim's rtpproxy and x-light causes problems as x-light sends RTCP messages which will result in ICMP error messages as rtpproxy doesn't support RTCP. This causes x-light to create a new RTP session (new ssrc, seq-nr) and produces choppy sound. Solutions: 1. use Adrians RTP proxy as it supports RTCP 2. extend Maxims rtpproxy to support RTCP 3. THE EASIEST SOLUTION: Update X-light to version build 1095. This version ignores ICMP errors and works fine (on my PC)! regards, Klaus PS: nevertheless build 1095 (as 1088) is IMO buggy as it doesn't register to my default proxy, but to all other configured proxies. Any solutions? > -----Original Message----- > From: Maxim Sobolev [mailto:sobomax@portaone.com] > Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 5:56 PM > To: Ricardo Villa > Cc: Klaus Darilion; Jan Janak; Adrian Georgescu; serusers(a)lists.iptel.org > Subject: Re: [Serusers] Re: Xten-RTPProxy choppy audio > > > Ok, I see, probably it tries to send a RTCP packet, which is OK by > itself, but handles resulting ICMP in a strange way. I'll extend RTP > proxy to make it relaying RTCP traffic as well (I am having > it on a TODO > list for a quite some time now), which should fix this problem. > > Thank you for the debugging! > > In the meantime, disabling RTCP in X-Ten should solve the problem. > > -Maxim > > Ricardo Villa wrote: > > > I can confirm this too. Just tried it in our lab with the > exact same > > results as Klaus. (Instead of Budgetone I used ATA186). > > > > X-Lite build 1084 > > > > 1. ATA186 Calls Xten. > > 2. Xten hears choppy audio every 5 seconds or so. > > 3. RTP Stream from ATA to Xten is perfect and conserves > the same SSRC > > 4. RTP Stream from Xten to ATA switches to a new SSRC > every few seconds. > > > > It is clear to me that there is a bug in Xten software. Before Xten > > switches to a new SSRC it attempts to send an RTP packet to > the wrong RTP > > Port (it tries to the actual port +1). SER server sends > back "ICMP Port > > Unreacheable (Obviously)" and Xten restarts RTP Stream on a > new SSRC. > > > > I did not see any problem with Maxims RTPProxy. > > > > Regards, > > Ricardo > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Klaus Darilion" <darilion(a)ict.tuwien.ac.at> > > To: "Jan Janak" <janak(a)fokus.fraunhofer.de>; "Adrian Georgescu" > > <ag(a)ag-projects.com> > > Cc: <serusers(a)lists.iptel.org>; "Ricardo Villa" <ricvil(a)epm.net.co> > > Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 11:07 AM > > Subject: RE: [Serusers] Re: Xten-RTPProxy choppy audio > > > > > > I can reproduce the choppy audio > > setup: > > budgetone-100 <----> ser+rtpproxy(version from today) on > redhat 9 (or 8, > > not sure) <------>x-lite build 1088 on win xp > > > > the choppy sound occours every 5 seconds, in both directions. > > RTP-analysis: > > RTP stream from budgetone to x-lite (via rtpproxy) is fine > (no jitter, > > no loss) > > RTP stream from x-lite to budgetone (via rtpproxy): very > strange: x-lite > > switches to a new SSRC (and seq-nr. start at 0 again) every > 5 seconds. > > > > so, in my opinion: rtpproxy works fine, x-lite is guilty. > but why does > > this happen only if the rtp proxy is involved? ...further > investigations > > are planned... > > > > Klaus > > > > > >>-----Original Message----- > >>From: Jan Janak [mailto:janak@fokus.fraunhofer.de] > >>Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 4:09 PM > >>To: Adrian Georgescu > >>Cc: serusers(a)lists.iptel.org; Ricardo Villa > >>Subject: Re: [Serusers] Re: Xten-RTPProxy choppy audio > >> > >> > >>Well, we can generate the traces locally, but I haven't > encounter the > >>problem you describe so it makes no sense. > >> > >>You wrote you are able to reproduce the problem, in that > case I would > >>like to ask you to generate the traces that show the problem > >>so we could > >>analyze and fix it. > >> > >>Also please tell us on what OS does this happen ? (I mean the > >>OS the proxy > >>is running on). > >> > >>Another question, what is the license of your RTP proxy ? I > >>didn't find > >>any licensing info in the sources. Will the sources be available ? > >> > >> Jan. > >> > >>On 10-12 16:04, Adrian Georgescu wrote: > >> > >>>On Wednesday, Dec 10, 2003, at 15:48 Europe/Amsterdam, > >> > >>Ricardo Villa > >> > >>>wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>>Adrian, > >>>> > >>>>Do you have an Etheral trace trace of such a call (using G711)? > >>> > >>>I guess ethereal traces can be generated with ethereal program and > >>>decoded locally on your servers if you want to isolate this. > >>> > >>> > >>>>I can > >>>>decode it and produce an audio file for all to examine. > >> > >>This way we > >> > >>>>can get > >>>>to the bottom of this. > >>>>Thanks, > >>>>Ricardo > >>> > >>>_______________________________________________ > >>>Serusers mailing list > >>>serusers(a)lists.iptel.org > >>>http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers > >> > >>_______________________________________________ > >>Serusers mailing list > >>serusers(a)lists.iptel.org > >>http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Serusers mailing list > > serusers(a)lists.iptel.org > > http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers > > > > > > > > >

20 years, 11 months

RE: [Serusers] response port..?

by Klaus Darilion

The default behaviour is that ser listen and sends on the same port: Register your client ------------> ser (port 5060) 200 OK your client <------------ ser (port 5060) klaus -----Original Message----- From: Santosh Subramanian, Noida [mailto:Santoshsu@noida.hcltech.com] Sent: Thu 11.12.2003 06:54 To: 'serusers(a)lists.iptel.org' Cc: Subject: [Serusers] response port..? If I use the port 5060 for sending REGISTER request, response from SER will be on the same port or on different port no..? Kind Regards, Santhosh.S _______________________________________________ Serusers mailing list serusers(a)lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers

20 years, 11 months

RE: [Serusers] How to Register..?

by Klaus Darilion

You have to use the public IP address in the Via header and in the contact header. Better would be to use a SIP proxy which rewrites the messages (e.g. ser and nathelper module) accordingly to the source address:port of the incoming messages and use a symmetric client (send and receive RTP on the same port). Usually iptel.org should have the nathelper module enabled and this should work. More information on this topic is also available on www.voip-info.org. ->NAT traversal Klaus -----Original Message----- From: Santosh Subramanian, Noida [mailto:Santoshsu@noida.hcltech.com] Sent: Thu 11.12.2003 09:02 To: 'serusers(a)lists.iptel.org' Cc: Subject: [Serusers] How to Register..? Hi, I have a client program , which will send REGISTER request to the proxy server and get back the response either "200 ok" or "401 unauthorized". I'm running SER proxy server in my local network and it is giving me "401 unauthorized". no problem in that. Now I'm trying to contact iptel.org with that program. Its since I'm running my program behind the firewall, the address and port (195.37.77.101:5060) is opened for me both ways. So my request should have reached iptel.org. Problem is, no response from iptel.org. can anyone working behind firewall send me the message format for REGISTER request. I've attached mine along with this mail.. kindly let me know if anything is wrong. I'm not able to proceed from this point. Kind Regards, Santhosh.S My Register Request: ===================== REGISTER sip:san.iptel.org:5060 SIP/2.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.14.56:5060;branch=z9hG4bK2952839661;rport From: san <sip:san@iptel.org>;tag=946143070 To: san <sip:san@iptel.org> Call-ID: 320799555(a)195.37.77.101 CSeq: 1 REGISTER Contact: san <sip:san@192.168.14.56:5060> max-forwards: 70 user-agent: oSIP-ua/0.8.1 expires: 3600 Content-Length: 0 where username is "san" My call flow shld. be: san SER Sip Server | | | REGISTER F1 | |------------------------------>| | 401 Unauthorized F2 | |<------------------------------| | REGISTER F3 | |------------------------------>| | 200 OK F4 | |<------------------------------| | | _______________________________________________ Serusers mailing list serusers(a)lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers

20 years, 11 months

RE: [Serusers] stop rety

by Klaus Darilion

I think you can't change this! The retransmissions are defined in RFC3261, and start with 0.5s. For every retransmission, the timer will be doubled until the maximum of 32seconds is reached (or fr_invite_timer fires). if the SIP phone is still ringing even if the call was canceled, there might be an error in your config script. Klaus > -----Original Message----- > From: - zaki - [mailto:zaki@edge.jp] > Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 8:21 PM > To: alan(a)columbia.edu > Cc: Klaus Darilion; serusers(a)lists.iptel.org > Subject: Re: [Serusers] stop rety > > > > Hi, > > I'll be happy if there is config parameter which can change how many > times INVITE request re-sent. > > > I've had this same problem, trying to do forwarding to > voicemail. If > > the voicemail does not answer (using a separate vm server > -- asterisk) > > then the invite keeps going forever. In fact, the sip phone rings > > forever even after the original inviter has canceled. > > > > I didn't add the append_branch("sip:parallel@localhost:9"). > Is that > > necessary for some reason? > > /a > > > > - zaki - wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > Thank you for your reply. > > > I've already used fr_invite_timer. > > > In this case, if SER send INVITE request, but nothing > replied by endpoint. > > > So SER try to re-send INVITE request again and again, and > I'd like to > > > change the number of retry of INVITE request. > > > Do you have any workaround for this? > > > > > > Best Regards, > > > > > > > > >>You can use the fr_invite_timer: > > >> > > > >>http://www.iptel.org/ser/doc/seruser/seruser.html#REPLYPROCE SSINGSECTION > >> > >>Klaus > >> > >> > >>>-----Original Message----- > >>>From: - zaki - [mailto:zaki@edge.jp] > >>>Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 6:11 PM > >>>To: serusers(a)lists.iptel.org > >>>Subject: [Serusers] stop rety > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>Hi, > >>> > >>>With following situation, > >>> > >>>* endpoint exists in location > >>> (found by serctl ul show) > >>> > >>>* but endpoint is actually dead > >>> > >>>if someone call the endpoint, then SER try to send INVITE request > >>>again and again. > >>> > >>>Could anyone please let me know how to change the number of retry > >>>in this situation? > >>> > >>>Best Regards, > >>> > >>>-- > >>> - zaki - YAMAZAKI Noriyuki, Director of EDGE Co., Ltd. > >>> +81-3-5749-9621(Phone), +81-3-5749-9910(Fax), zaki(a)edge.jp > >>> > >>> > >>>_______________________________________________ > >>>Serusers mailing list > >>>serusers(a)lists.iptel.org > >>>http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers > >>> > >>> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Serusers mailing list > > serusers(a)lists.iptel.org > > http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers

20 years, 11 months

RE: [Serusers] nathelper question - nat_flag

by Klaus Darilion

You should copy-paste this description into the user-guide or into the README of the registrar und userloc module. regards, Klaus -----Original Message----- From: Jan Janak [mailto:jan@iptel.org] Sent: Wed 10.12.2003 23:50 To: Klaus Darilion Cc: serusers(a)lists.iptel.org Subject: Re: [Serusers] nathelper question - nat_flag Basically usrloc has been extended to save the status of a flag. Which flag it should save can be configured using the "nat_flag" parameter of the registrar module. Let's say you configure modparam("registrar", "nat_flag", 6) Then flag 6 will be saved into the user location database each time you call save("location") and retrieved each time you call lookup("location"). If flag 6 is set before save() then it will be also set after lookup() for the same contact. Because the user location database stores already rewritten contact (in case the user agent was behind a NAT), you don't know if the contact returned by lookup() is behind NAT That's what the flag is for. If the configured flag is set after lookup("location") then you know that the contact is behind NAT. Typically you would do something like this (very rough example): # For REGISTER If (contact_is_behind_nat) { rewrite_contact setflag(6) save("location") } # For INVITE if (lookup("location")) { if (isset(6)) { # Contact is behind NAT force_rtp_proxy } } Jan. On 10-12 23:40, Klaus Darilion wrote: > Hi! > > I'm lost in the NAT problem! > > I read about the 'new' flags which will be stored in the location table to > detect the presence of NATed clients. > http://lists.iptel.org/pipermail/serdev/2003-October/000690.html > > But I can't find any documentation about them. How do I use them? Do I have > to use setflag(?) before save("location")? Which flag do I have to set? Do I > have to retrive the flags during lookup("location") to force_rtp_proxy in > case of an registered client whic is nated? > > regards, > Klaus > > > _______________________________________________ > Serusers mailing list > serusers(a)lists.iptel.org > http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers

20 years, 11 months

[Serusers] RE: Patch for RTPProxy (original C version) to support RTCP

by Klaus Darilion

Hi Maxim! I haven't tested the RTCP relaying in deep but first test looks good. No ICMP error messages -> x-light doesn't get confused anymore. Klaus -----Original Message----- From: Maxim Sobolev [mailto:sobomax@portaone.com] Sent: Thu 11.12.2003 01:32 To: Klaus Darilion Cc: Ricardo Villa; Jan Janak; Adrian Georgescu; serusers(a)lists.iptel.org Subject: Patch for RTPProxy (original C version) to support RTCP I've crafted patch to support RTCP in addition to RTP, please test and let me know if it works or not. This should solve the problem with X-Lite. http://www.portaone.com/~sobomax/rtpproxy.rtcp.diff Thanks! -Maxim Klaus Darilion wrote: > Short summary: > > Maxim's rtpproxy and x-light causes problems as x-light sends RTCP > messages which will result in ICMP error messages as rtpproxy doesn't > support RTCP. This causes x-light to create a new RTP session (new ssrc, > seq-nr) and produces choppy sound. > > Solutions: > 1. use Adrians RTP proxy as it supports RTCP > 2. extend Maxims rtpproxy to support RTCP > > 3. THE EASIEST SOLUTION: Update X-light to version build 1095. This > version ignores ICMP errors and works fine (on my PC)! > > regards, > Klaus > > PS: nevertheless build 1095 (as 1088) is IMO buggy as it doesn't > register to my default proxy, but to all other configured proxies. Any > solutions? > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Maxim Sobolev [mailto:sobomax@portaone.com] >>Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 5:56 PM >>To: Ricardo Villa >>Cc: Klaus Darilion; Jan Janak; Adrian Georgescu; serusers(a)lists.iptel.org >>Subject: Re: [Serusers] Re: Xten-RTPProxy choppy audio >> >> >>Ok, I see, probably it tries to send a RTCP packet, which is OK by >>itself, but handles resulting ICMP in a strange way. I'll extend RTP >>proxy to make it relaying RTCP traffic as well (I am having >>it on a TODO >>list for a quite some time now), which should fix this problem. >> >>Thank you for the debugging! >> >>In the meantime, disabling RTCP in X-Ten should solve the problem. >> >>-Maxim >> >>Ricardo Villa wrote: >> >> >>>I can confirm this too. Just tried it in our lab with the >> >>exact same >> >>>results as Klaus. (Instead of Budgetone I used ATA186). >>> >>>X-Lite build 1084 >>> >>>1. ATA186 Calls Xten. >>>2. Xten hears choppy audio every 5 seconds or so. >>>3. RTP Stream from ATA to Xten is perfect and conserves >> >>the same SSRC >> >>>4. RTP Stream from Xten to ATA switches to a new SSRC >> >>every few seconds. >> >>>It is clear to me that there is a bug in Xten software. Before Xten >>>switches to a new SSRC it attempts to send an RTP packet to >> >>the wrong RTP >> >>>Port (it tries to the actual port +1). SER server sends >> >>back "ICMP Port >> >>>Unreacheable (Obviously)" and Xten restarts RTP Stream on a >> >>new SSRC. >> >>>I did not see any problem with Maxims RTPProxy. >>> >>>Regards, >>>Ricardo >>> >>>----- Original Message ----- >>>From: "Klaus Darilion" <darilion(a)ict.tuwien.ac.at> >>>To: "Jan Janak" <janak(a)fokus.fraunhofer.de>; "Adrian Georgescu" >>><ag(a)ag-projects.com> >>>Cc: <serusers(a)lists.iptel.org>; "Ricardo Villa" <ricvil(a)epm.net.co> >>>Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 11:07 AM >>>Subject: RE: [Serusers] Re: Xten-RTPProxy choppy audio >>> >>> >>>I can reproduce the choppy audio >>>setup: >>>budgetone-100 <----> ser+rtpproxy(version from today) on >> >>redhat 9 (or 8, >> >>>not sure) <------>x-lite build 1088 on win xp >>> >>>the choppy sound occours every 5 seconds, in both directions. >>>RTP-analysis: >>>RTP stream from budgetone to x-lite (via rtpproxy) is fine >> >>(no jitter, >> >>>no loss) >>>RTP stream from x-lite to budgetone (via rtpproxy): very >> >>strange: x-lite >> >>>switches to a new SSRC (and seq-nr. start at 0 again) every >> >>5 seconds. >> >>>so, in my opinion: rtpproxy works fine, x-lite is guilty. >> >>but why does >> >>>this happen only if the rtp proxy is involved? ...further >> >>investigations >> >>>are planned... >>> >>>Klaus >>> >>> >>> >>>>-----Original Message----- >>>>From: Jan Janak [mailto:janak@fokus.fraunhofer.de] >>>>Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 4:09 PM >>>>To: Adrian Georgescu >>>>Cc: serusers(a)lists.iptel.org; Ricardo Villa >>>>Subject: Re: [Serusers] Re: Xten-RTPProxy choppy audio >>>> >>>> >>>>Well, we can generate the traces locally, but I haven't >> >>encounter the >> >>>>problem you describe so it makes no sense. >>>> >>>>You wrote you are able to reproduce the problem, in that >> >>case I would >> >>>>like to ask you to generate the traces that show the problem >>>>so we could >>>>analyze and fix it. >>>> >>>>Also please tell us on what OS does this happen ? (I mean the >>>>OS the proxy >>>>is running on). >>>> >>>>Another question, what is the license of your RTP proxy ? I >>>>didn't find >>>>any licensing info in the sources. Will the sources be available ? >>>> >>>>Jan. >>>> >>>>On 10-12 16:04, Adrian Georgescu wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>On Wednesday, Dec 10, 2003, at 15:48 Europe/Amsterdam, >>>> >>>>Ricardo Villa >>>> >>>> >>>>>wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Adrian, >>>>>> >>>>>>Do you have an Etheral trace trace of such a call (using G711)? >>>>> >>>>>I guess ethereal traces can be generated with ethereal program and >>>>>decoded locally on your servers if you want to isolate this. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>I can >>>>>>decode it and produce an audio file for all to examine. >>>> >>>>This way we >>>> >>>> >>>>>>can get >>>>>>to the bottom of this. >>>>>>Thanks, >>>>>>Ricardo >>>>> >>>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>>Serusers mailing list >>>>>serusers(a)lists.iptel.org >>>>>http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers >>>> >>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>Serusers mailing list >>>>serusers(a)lists.iptel.org >>>>http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>Serusers mailing list >>>serusers(a)lists.iptel.org >>>http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > > >

20 years, 11 months

[Serusers] nathelper question - nat_flag

by Klaus Darilion

Hi! I'm lost in the NAT problem! I read about the 'new' flags which will be stored in the location table to detect the presence of NATed clients. http://lists.iptel.org/pipermail/serdev/2003-October/000690.html But I can't find any documentation about them. How do I use them? Do I have to use setflag(?) before save("location")? Which flag do I have to set? Do I have to retrive the flags during lookup("location") to force_rtp_proxy in case of an registered client whic is nated? regards, Klaus

20 years, 11 months

[Serusers] Ser config problem

by Rick Gocher

Hi all, I have had some success with the configuration, however using authentication does not work for me at all. I have grabbed another cfg for testing, I can see my ata sending reg requests to the server and the server just replying immediately with unauthorized 401 error. Shouldn't the server first reply with a 100 trying message? Does the cfg file look like it should work? Thanks again, 64.189.165.2065060 -> 64.189.165.2055060 REGISTER sip:sip.coptalk.com SIP/2.0..Via SIP/2.0/UDP 64.189.165.2065060..From sip:Rick@sip.coptalk.com;tag=21094236 64..To sip:Rick@sip.coptalk.com..Call-ID 399581690@64.189.165.206..CSeq 1 REGISTER..Contact <sip:Rick@64.189.165.206 5060;transport=udp>;expires=3600..User-Agent Cisco ATA 186 v2.16.2 ata18x (030909a)..Content-Length 0.... # U 64.189.165.2055060 -> 64.189.165.2065060 SIP/2.0 401 Unauthorized..Via SIP/2.0/UDP 64.189.165.2065060..From sip:Rick@sip.coptalk.com;tag=2109423664..To sip:R ick@sip.coptalk.com;tag=b27e1a1d33761e85846fc98f5f3a7e58.4a60..Call-ID 399581690@64.189.165.206..CSeq 1 REGISTER..WWW- Authenticate Digest realm="sip.coptalk.com", nonce="3fd602692d1f0bf922ae277c623f1d201acbde03"..Server Sip EXpress rou ter (0.8.12 (i386/linux))..Content-Length 0.... # ----------- global configuration parameters ------------------------ debug=3 # debug level (cmd line -dddddddddd) fork=yes log_stderror=yes # (cmd line -E) #/* Uncomment these lines to enter debugging mode #fork=no #log_stderror=yes #*/ check_via=no # (cmd. line -v) dns=no # (cmd. line -r) rev_dns=no # (cmd. line -R) port=5060 children=4 fifo="/tmp/ser_fifo" # # $Id pstn.cfg,v 1.2 2003/06/03 031812 jiri Exp $ # # # ------------------ module loading ---------------------------------- loadmodule "/usr/lib/ser/modules/tm.so" loadmodule "/usr/lib/ser/modules/sl.so" loadmodule "/usr/lib/ser/modules/acc.so" loadmodule "/usr/lib/ser/modules/rr.so" loadmodule "/usr/lib/ser/modules/usrloc.so" loadmodule "/usr/lib/ser/modules/uri.so" loadmodule "/usr/lib/ser/modules/registrar.so" loadmodule "/usr/lib/ser/modules/maxfwd.so" loadmodule "/usr/lib/ser/modules/mysql.so" loadmodule "/usr/lib/ser/modules/auth.so" loadmodule "/usr/lib/ser/modules/auth_db.so" loadmodule "/usr/lib/ser/modules/textops.so" loadmodule "/usr/lib/ser/modules/group.so" modparam("auth_db", "db_url","sql//password@localhost/ser") modparam("usrloc", "db_url", "sql//password@localhost/ser") # ----------------- setting module-specific parameters --------------- modparam("auth_db", "calculate_ha1", yes) modparam("auth_db", "password_column", "password") modparam("usrloc", "db_mode", 2) # -- acc params -- # modparam("acc", "log_level", 1) # that is the flag for which we will account -- don't forget to # set the same one -) # modparam("acc", "log_flag", 1 ) # ------------------------- request routing logic ------------------- # main routing logic alias="coptalk.com" alias="sip.coptalk.com" use sip_warning=no modparam("rr", "enable_full_lr", 1) route{ # initial sanity checks -- messages with # max_forwards==0, or excessively longrequests if (!mf_process_maxfwd_header("10")) { sl_send_reply("483","Too Many Hops"); break; }; if (msglen >= max_len ) { sl_send_reply("513", "Message too big"); break; }; # we record-route all messages -- to make surethat # subsequent messages will go through ourproxy; that's # particularly good if upstream and downstreamentities # use different transport protocol record_route(); # loose-route processing if (loose_route()) { t_relay(); break; }; # if the request is for other domain useUsrLoc # (in case, it does not work, use thefollowing command # with proper names and addresses in it) if (uri=~"[@\.]sip\.coptalk\.com([;].*)*") { if (method=="REGISTER") { # Uncomment this if you want to use digestauthentication if (!www_authorize("sip.coptalk.com", "subscriber")) { www_challenge("sip.coptalk.com", "0"); break; }; save("location"); break; }; # native SIP destinations are handledusing our USRLOC DB if (!lookup("location")) { sl_send_reply("404", "NotFound"); break; }; }; # forward to current uri now; use statefulforwarding; that # works reliably even if we forward from TCPto UDP if (!t_relay()) { sl_reply_error(); }; if (uri=~"^sip[0-9]*@.*") { log("Forwarding to PSTN\n"); t_relay_to_udp ("65.189.155.101","5060"); t_relay_to_tcp ("65.189.155.101","5060"); break; }; if (method=="INVITE") { sl_send_reply("403", "Call cannot be served here"); } else { forward(urihost, uriport); }; break; }

20 years, 11 months

← Newer
1
...
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
...
26
Older →

Jump to page:

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 December 2003