Hi,
I trying to doing a proof of concept using Windows Messenger and SER
(SIMPLE2Jabber Gateway).
I have SER (0.8.11-0) installed and running on Redhat-9 (Linux
2.4.20-8).
I'm using Windows Messenger (Version 4.7) as my client.
It seems like the Windows Messenger clients are able to register with
the SER.
But when I try to send an IM between the clients nothing happens and I
see the following error
in the log file:
Dec 8 16:45:42 yosh-cm1 ser: 0(2234)
XJA:xj_address_translation:2249: - wrong Jabber destination
yoshioka(a)yosh-cm1.cisco.com!!!
Dec 8 16:45:42 yosh-cm1 ser: 0(2234) XJAB:xj_worker:2249: ERROR
SENDING as Jabber message ...
Any help would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Alana
Hi,
http://lists.iptel.org/pipermail/serdev/2003-April/000019.html (text copied
below) says that the rport functionality in ser-cvs-version at that time was
not correct.
I have a simple question related to that:
- Is the rport functionality correct in ser-0.8.10, or is the same problem
present there ?
(The "ISSUES" file does not mention any problems related to rport for any ser
release, but I want to be sure)
/Lasse
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<http://lists.iptel.org/pipermail/serdev/2003-April/000019.html> follows:
[Serdev] Re: received-rport in SER ?
Jiri Kuthan jiri(a)iptel.org
Fri, 04 Apr 2003 18:57:34 +0200
Previous message: [Serdev] Re: Accounting module mods with MySQL and SERWEB
Next message: [Serdev] RE: [Serusers] Accounting Script
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Hopefuly, it is now fixed on CVS. We haven't tested too much yet, though.
-Jiri
At 12:37 AM 4/2/2003, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
>On Tue, Apr 01, 2003 at 06:28:30PM +0200, Sergio Miguel Garcia wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I have been looking for symmetric-reponse ( receiver-rport pair ) in the
mailing lists of SER, and I found some interesting mails about the same issue
from you
>> I've been trying with the CVS version and got these results: ... when I
append an empty "rport" in the Via header, the server fills the Via header
with the correct values of "rport" and "received", but the packet is sent
back to the "received" IP BUT to the port scpecified in the Via header
instead of the "rport" port.
>> This means that the response of the request never reaches the original UA
using a symmetric NAT ( althought the return IP address is correct), because
SER sents the UDP packet to a internal port.
>>
>> I've tried with the Vovida SIP server v1.4 and works fine. Have you tried
to fix it or know someone that have tried to solve this issue ?
>>
>> Thanks in advance for your help and best regards.
>>
>> Sergio.
--
Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/
Hi everyone,
I have been having lots of problems delivering calls to my companies
gateway. I have tried several different configs found online however
nothing seems to work. I am including the ser.cfg and a dump from ngrep in
hopes a kind person will see what the problem is. I do not know very much
about sip or ser so any help is greatly needed. Currently our company uses
a cisco voip solution and I am setting up Ser as a test. Unfortunately our
admin does not seem very helpful, I'm not sure if he has things setup
correctly for my calls on the gateway or if it's my ser.cfg file. I was
hoping from the information I'm sending someone can tell me where the
problem looks like it's coming from, wether it's his gateway or my config
file. I'm thinking it's me as I don't see any attempt of passing the call
to the gateway in the ngrep output.
Also, I have had to alter my ip's listed in this email. I have been warned
under penalty of pain not to broadcast their ip addresses... :p I hope
this does not cause a problem.
ATA 64.189.165.206
Ser Box 64.189.165.205
Cisco GW 65.189.155.101
Thank you,
# ----------- global configuration parameters ------------------------
debug=3 # debug level (cmd line -dddddddddd)
fork=yes
log_stderror=no # (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//secret@localhost/ser")
modparam("usrloc", "db_url", "sql//secret@localhost/ser")
# ----------------- setting module-specific parameters ---------------
modparam("auth_db", "calculate_ha1", yes)
modparam("auth_db", "password_column", "password")
# -- 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
route{
/* ********* ROUTINE CHECKS ********************************** */
# filter too old messages
if (!mf_process_maxfwd_header("10")) {
log("LOG Too many hops\n");
sl_send_reply("483","Too Many Hops");
break;
};
if (msglen >= max_len ) {
sl_send_reply("513", "Message too big");
break;
};
/* ********* RR ********************************** */
/* grant Route routing if route headers present */
if (loose_route()) { t_relay(); break; };
/* record-route INVITEs -- all subsequent requests must visit us */
if (method=="INVITE") {
record_route();
};
# now check if it really is a PSTN destination which should be handled
# by our gateway; if not, and the request is an invitation, drop it --
# we cannot terminate it in PSTN; relay non-INVITE requests -- it may
# be for example BYEs sent by gateway to call originator
if (!uri=~"sip\+?[0-9]+@.*") {
if (method=="INVITE") {
sl_send_reply("403", "Call cannot be served here");
} else {
forward(urihost, uriport);
};
break;
};
# account completed transactions via syslog
setflag(1);
# free call destinations ... no authentication needed
if ( is_user_in("Request-URI", "free-pstn") /* free destinations */
| uri=~"sip[7][0-9][0-9][0-9]@.*" /* local PBX */
| uri=~"sip98[0-9][0-9][0-9][0-9]") {
log("free call");
} else if (src_ip==65.189.155.101) {
# our gateway doesn't support digest authentication;
# verify that a request is coming from it by source
# address
log("gateway-originated request");
} else {
# in all other cases, we need to check the request against
# access control lists; first of all, verify request
# originator's identity
if (!proxy_authorize( "gateway" /* realm */,
"subscriber" /* table name */)) {
proxy_challenge( "gateway" /* realm */, "0" /* no
qop */ );
break;
};
# authorize only for INVITEs -- RR/Contact may result in weird
# things showing up in d-uri that would break our logic; our
# major concern is INVITE which causes PSTN costs
if (method=="INVITE") {
# does the authenticated user have a permission
for local
# calls (destinations beginning with a single zero)?
# (i.e., is he in the "local" group?)
if (uri=~"sip0[1-9][0-9]+@.*") {
if (!is_user_in("credentials", "local")) {
sl_send_reply("403", "No
permission for local calls");
break;
};
# the same for long-distance (destinations begin
with two zeros")
} else if (uri=~"sip00[1-9][0-9]+@.*") {
if (!is_user_in("credentials", "ld")) {
sl_send_reply("403", " no
permission for LD ");
break;
};
# the same for international calls (three zeros)
} else if (uri=~"sip000[1-9][0-9]+@.*") {
if (!is_user_in("credentials", "int")) {
sl_send_reply("403",
"International permissions needed");
break;
};
# everything else (e.g., interplanetary calls) is
denied
} else {
sl_send_reply("403", "Forbidden");
break;
};
}; # INVITE to authorized PSTN
}; # authorized PSTN
# if you have passed through all the checks, let your call go to GW!
rewritehostport("65.189.155.1015060");
# forward the request now
if (!t_relay()) {
sl_reply_error();
break;
};
}
################ ngrep output#######################
#
U 64.189.165.2065060 -> 64.189.165.2055060
INVITE sip776044445556(a)64.189.165.205;user=phone SIP/2.0..Via
SIP/2.0/UDP 64.189.165.2065060..From <sip6
044848235(a)64.189.165.205;user=phone>;tag=409936633..To
<sip776044445556(a)64.189.165.205;user=phone>..Call-ID
2945885252@64.189.165.206..CSeq 1 INVITE..Contact
<sip6044445555(a)64.189.165.2065060;user=phone;transpor
t=udp>..User-Agent Cisco ATA 186 v2.16.2 ata18x (030909a)..Expires
300..Content-Length 257..Content-Typ
e application/sdp....v=0..o=6044445555 62848 62848 IN IP4
64.189.165.206..s=ATA186 Call..c=IN IP4 64.189.165.206..t=0 0..m=audio
16384 RTP/AVP 18 8 0 101..a=rtpmap18 G729/8000/1..a=rtpmap8
PCMA/8000/1..a=rtpmap0PCMU/8000/1..a=rtpmap101
telephone-event/8000..a=fmtp101 0-15..
#
U 64.189.165.2055060 -> 64.189.165.2065060
SIP/2.0 407 Proxy Authentication Required..Via SIP/2.0/UDP
64.189.165.2065060..From
<sip6044445555(a)64.189.165.205;user=phone>;tag=409936633..To
<sip776044445556(a)64.189.165.205;user=phone>;tag=b27e1a1d33761e85846fc98f5f3a7e58.0ed0..Call-ID
2945885252@64.189.165.206..CSeq 1 INVITE..Proxy-Authenticate Digest
realm="gateway", nonce="3fcf790810cb0daaf030be719aa79e574b96b535"..Server
Sip EXpress router (0.8.12 (i386/linux)).
.Content-Length 0..Warning 392 64.189.165.2055060 "Noisy feedback
tells pid=32407 req_src_ip=64.189.165.206 req_src_port=5060
in_uri=sip776044445556(a)64.189.165.205;user=phone
out_uri=sip776044445556(a)64.189.165.205;user=phone via_cnt==1"....
#
U 64.189.165.2065060 -> 64.189.165.2055060
ACK sip776044445556(a)64.189.165.205;user=phone SIP/2.0..Via SIP/2.0/UDP
64.189.165.2065060..From <sip6044
445555(a)64.189.165.205;user=phone>;tag=409936633..To
<sip776044445556(a)64.189.165.205;user=phone>;tag=b27e1a1
d33761e85846fc98f5f3a7e58.0ed0..Call-ID 2945885252@64.189.165.206..CSeq
1 ACK..User-Agent Cisco ATA 186
v2.16.2 ata18x (030909a)..Content-Length 0....
hi,
In the PA document, it said "This module currently cannot work as a B2BUA, i.e. it cannot subsribe to presence of users using SIP. We are currently working on that feature."
So for 0.8.12, dose SER provide Presence Agent feature for SIP UA (like MS Messager) ?
Thanks,
hong
My script has following information regarding NAT,
I have installed RTPProxy and I cannot hear any communication between the
phones.
Here is my configuration,
# global parameters
mhomed=yes
# Nathelper
loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/nathelper.so"
# Parameter section
modparam("nathelper","natping_interval", 10)
# Routing section
route {
.....
if( method=="INVITE") {
record_route();
force_rtp_proxy();
/* set up reply processing */
t_on_reply("1");
};
....
}
#route leg
# all incoming replied for t_onreplied transactions enter here
onreply_route[1] {
if( status =~"[12][0-9][0-9]" ){
force_rtp_proxy();
};
}
Can anyone please help me what should I need to do further to call between
my Cisco ATA 186 and X-lite.
Best Regards,
Kannaiyan
hello,
i try to give two contacts for a callee.
One is sip contact and one is pstn contact.
When the callee is off line,the call should
be lead to pstn contact.
I have done:
serctl ul add yongcheng sip:017923435@gateway.de.
sip contact is yongcheng(a)mydomain.de.
I cannot finish the mapping from yongcheng(a)mydomain.de to
017923435(a)gateway.de.
how can I do?
best regards
Yongcheng Chen
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/
Hello:
I'm trying to register kphone to my ser proxy using authentication with user
and password but I can't make it work.
In the identity configuration of kphone I have set "jorge" in "user part of
SIP URL" and "authentication username" and I have set "asterix" in "host part
of SIP URL" and "outbound proxy"
The same configuration with user and password works fine with windows
messenger 4.7
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The error messages I get from kphone are these:
SipClient: Sending: 10:09:30.743
--------------------------------
REGISTER sip:asterix SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.2.175:5062
CSeq: 928 REGISTER
To: "jorge" <sip:jorge@asterix>
Expires: 900
From: "jorge" <sip:jorge@asterix>
Call-ID: 1234450217(a)192.168.2.175
Content-Length: 0
User-Agent: KPhone/3.12
Event: registration
Allow-Events: presence
Contact: "jorge"
<sip:jorge@192.168.2.175:5062;transport=udp>;q=1.0;methods="INVITE, MESSAGE,
INFO, SUBSCRIBE, OPTIONS, BYE, CANCEL, NOTIFY, ACK"
SipClient: Receiving message...
SipClient: Received: 10:09:30.755
---------------------------------
SIP/2.0 401 Unauthorized
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.2.175:5062
CSeq: 928 REGISTER
To: "jorge" <sip:jorge@asterix>;tag=b27e1a1d33761e85846fc98f5f3a7e58.fbe3
From: "jorge" <sip:jorge@asterix>
Call-ID: 1234450217(a)192.168.2.175
WWW-Authenticate: Digest realm="asterix",
nonce="3fcb14af87f1bd1110526a8d29ad258492f165bd"
Server: Sip EXpress router (0.8.11 (i386/linux))
Content-Length: 0
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And my ser.cfg file is this:
alias="asterix"
alias=192.168.2.176
sip_warning=no
check_via=no # (cmd. line: -v)
dns=no # (cmd. line: -r)
rev_dns=no # (cmd. line: -R)
fifo="/tmp/ser_fifo"
# Uncomment this if you want to use SQL database
loadmodule "/usr/lib/ser/modules/mysql.so"
loadmodule "/usr/lib/ser/modules/sl.so"
loadmodule "/usr/lib/ser/modules/tm.so"
loadmodule "/usr/lib/ser/modules/rr.so"
loadmodule "/usr/lib/ser/modules/maxfwd.so"
loadmodule "/usr/lib/ser/modules/usrloc.so"
loadmodule "/usr/lib/ser/modules/registrar.so"
loadmodule "/usr/lib/ser/modules/auth.so"
loadmodule "/usr/lib/ser/modules/auth_db.so"
modparam("usrloc", "db_mode", 2)
modparam("auth_db", "calculate_ha1", yes)
modparam("auth_db", "password_column", "password")
modparam("rr", "enable_full_lr", 1)
route{
if (!mf_process_maxfwd_header("10")) {
sl_send_reply("483","Too Many Hops");
break;
};
if (len_gt( max_len )) {
sl_send_reply("513", "Message too big");
break;
};
record_route();
if (loose_route()) {
t_relay();
break;
};
if (uri==myself) {
if (uri =~ "^sip:9[0-9]*@asterix") {
log ("enviando al asterisk\n");
t_relay_to_udp("192.168.2.175", "5060");
break;
};
if (method=="REGISTER") {
# Uncomment this if you want to use digest authentication
if (!www_authorize("asterix", "subscriber")) {
www_challenge("asterix", "0");
break;
};
save("location");
break;
};
# native SIP destinations are handled using our USRLOC DB
if (!lookup("location")) {
sl_send_reply("404", "Not Found");
break;
};
};
if (!t_relay()) {
sl_reply_error();
};
}
Hi Jiri,
Yes one RTP-Proxy should be good enough.
However I am trying to do a hop-by-hop IPSec (without IKE) thing. In a small setup, I can ofcourse do an IPSec between RTP-Proxy 1 and UA2 (that is implementing what you suggested - just one RTP Proxy on the path). However, in a real world this will not be possible - since dynamically setting up this IPSec session will be virtually impossible (UA2 does not know who SER/RTP Proxy 1 is). It is however possible to set up an IPSec (no IKE, symmetric keys) session between UA2 and SER/RTP Proxy 2 (since that's his service provider). Also, there can be an agreement between service providers on how to set up IPSec between them (SER1 and SER2). So what I am trying to do is something like -
[UA1]<----IPSec---->[SER/RTP proxy1]<----IPSec--->[SER/RTY Proxy 2]<---IPSec---->[UA2]
Its very difficult to explain why I am trying to do something like this (maybe someone having a good knowledge of 3GPP will understand me better) - but please excuse me for the moment, I need to do this :)
Dhiraj
-----Original Message-----
From: serusers-bounces(a)iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org]On
Behalf Of Jiri Kuthan
Sent: 08 December 2003 10:56
To: Bhuyan,D,Dhiraj,XVR3 R; serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
Subject: Re: [Serusers] Two RTP Proxies | Traffic not forwarded
The easiest way you can do is label INVITEs which are rtp-proxied with a special header
(append_hf('P-Nat-foo: bar\r\n')) and don't rtp-proxy an INVITE if such a header is
already present (is_present_hf("P-Nat-foo")). The rationale is one RTP proxy in the
path is good enough.
There is lot of other heuristics you could do, but that would be no longer a short
email.
-jiri
At 11:43 AM 12/8/2003, dhiraj.2.bhuyan(a)bt.com wrote:
>Hello List,
>
>I have the following settings -
>
>[ UA1 ] <-------> [ SER/RTP Proxy 1] <--------> [ SER/RTP Proxy 2] <-------> [ UA2 ]
>
>Both SERs are configured to force RTP Proxy whether or not the UA is behind NAT (I know this is not required, but is necessary for what I am trying to do - basically some IPSec and 3GPP things). UA1 is registered to SER1 and UA2 is registered to SER2. I tried setting up a call between UA1 and UA2 - but could not hear anything on either ends. I monitored the network traffic (SIP and SDP messages appear to be fine - ethereal dump attached) and found that the RTP Proxy 1 does not forward the traffic to RTP Proxy 2 and vice versa. RTP traffic from UA1 goes to RTP Proxy 1 and does not go any further. Similary, RTP traffic from UA2 just hangs at RTP Proxy 2. I am aware of the fact that the RTP proxy waits for one UDP packet from both UAs before forwarding the RTP traffic only if both the UAs have SIP URI that belong to the same domain - otherwise they should forward the traffic immediately. In my test case, the RTP proxies should have forwarded the RTP traffic without waiting (since UA1 and UA2 belong to two different domain) - and this appears to be failing. Can anyone throw some light on this? I am attaching my SER config file (both SERs have exactly the same config file - other than the alias domain part). I am using SER from the CVS (1st December).
>
>I am attaching the ethereal dump of the SIP messaging (just to confirm that SIP/SDP exchanges went fine). Note that -
>UA1 - 132.146.196.18
>UA2 - 132.146.196.49
>SER1 - 132.146.196.75 (bump1.alien.bt.co.uk)
>SER2 - 132.146.196.49 (eniac.alien.bt.co.uk)
>
>Thanks,
>
>Dhiraj Bhuyan
>Network Security Specialist,
>BT Exact Business Assurance Solutions
>
>Tel: +44 1473 643932
>Mob: +44 7962 012145
>Email: dhiraj.2.bhuyan(a)bt.com
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Serusers mailing list
>serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
>http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
--
Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers