The UA (Sipura SPA-2000) is changing it's response on the ACK...
sip scenario : http://www.addaline.com/traces/t4_index.html
Raw trace: http://www.addaline.com/traces/t4.w
I note that the caller's initial (challenged) INVITE produces:
Proxy-Authorization: Digest
username="580009",realm="worldipphone.net",nonce="4166db96623abffd65eab0
fcdd4e8e40ed31f6cd",uri="sip:
580011(a)worldipphone.net",algorithm=MD5,response="57bf811fd90aa1d5f34e3b0
2e62740de"
inside the SIP packets. I trace all of them, and they remain
identical, until
frame #70. Frame 70 (the ACK) sends:
Proxy-Authorization: Digest
username="580009",realm="worldipphone.net",nonce="4166db96623abffd65eab0
fcdd4e8e40ed31f6cd",uri="sip:
580011(a)worldipphone.net",algorithm=MD5,response="eef5a947b282f173c5e7057
29f017faf"
My proxy is picking up the new response, and reporting:
Oct 8 13:20:29 red ser[1192]: ACC: transaction answered:
method=INVITE, i-uri=sip:580011@worldipphone.net,
o-uri=sip:~wCYW7mQU9Hrodvm6PwcJODzkQ9n9vBx_U@198.212.169.240:5060,
call_id=058240b057fefa358d78e2705d09baff,
from=<sip:580009@worldipphone.net>;tag=b5fe1311, code=200, uid=580009,
fromtag=b5fe1311, uid=580009, fromuri=sip:580009@worldipphone.net,
fromuser=580009, fromdomain=worldipphone.net,
to=<sip:580011@worldipphone.net>;tag=e203a620, totag=e203a620,
touri=sip:580011@worldipphone.net, touser=580011, code=200,
userpart=580011, domain=worldipphone.net
Oct 8 13:20:29 red ser[1215]: check_username(): No authorized
credentials found (error in scripts)
Oct 8 13:20:29 red ser[1215]: check_username(): Call
{www,proxy}_authorize before calling check_* function !Oct 8 13:20:29
red ser[1215]: worldipphone.net-403: time_t=1097259629 ^LINE=135
^FILE=/usr/local/lib/ser/include/sergatewayob.pre
^call_id=058240b057fefa358d78e2705d09baff ^cseq=189334723
^contact=<null> ^from=sip:580009@worldipphone.net ^fromtag=b5fe1311
^to=sip:580011@worldipphone.net ^totag=e203a620 ^method=ACK
^ruri=580011(a)198.212.169.15;lr;ftag=b5fe1311
^messageid=10075^remark=authentication mismatch
Oct 8 13:20:29 red ser[1215]: Warning: sl_send_reply: I won't send a
reply for ACK!!
and it won't reply with an authorization error to an ACK packet...so
the ball is dropped there.
This is pretty weird. Why would the response change?
---greg
Greg Fausak
www.AddaBrand.com
(US) 469-546-1265
I was also facing the same problem.
Things worked fine if I recompiled it without F_MALLOC flag.
Any idea is the memory leak in fm_malloc() or in dbase.c?
There are
Best Regards,
Nayan Jain
Drishti-Soft Solutions Pvt Ltd
http://www.drishti-soft.com
Jan Janak wrote:
> First of all, try to set the value of PKG_MEM_POOL_SIZE to the original
> value - 1024 * 1024 and try again.
>
> Then try to increase the value again, but make sure that the new value
> is a power of two, for example 8 * 1024 * 1024.
>
> Jan.
>
> On 31-08 21:51, Peter Herre wrote:
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>when starting ser with database access I receive the
>>following error messages:
>>
>> 1(0) DEBUG: init_mod_child (-1): tm
>> 1(0) DEBUG: callid: '7b7bffbf-0 at 10.48.9.4'
>> 1(0) DEBUG: init_mod_child (-1): usrloc
>> 1(0) DEBUG: init_mod_child (-1): auth_db
>> 1(0) connect_db(): No enough memory
>> 1(0) db_init(): Error while trying to connect database
>> 1(0) auth_db:init_child(): Unable to connect database
>> 1(0) init_mod_child(): Error while initializing module auth_db
>> 1(0) timer: init_child failed
>>
>>Can you provide me any help?
>>
>>
>>More detailed information follows:
>>
>>uname -a:
>>=========
>>Linux sip 2.6.5-7.104-default #1 Wed Jul 28 16:42:13 UTC 2004 i686 i686 i386
>>GNU/Linux
>>
>>ser distribution:
>>=================
>>ser-0.8.14_src.tar.gz
>>
>>modified config.h file:
>>
>>/*used only if PKG_MALLOC is defined*/
>>#define PKG_MEM_POOL_SIZE 10240*1024
>>
>>/*used if SH_MEM is defined*/
>>#define SHM_MEM_SIZE 64
>>
>>ser -V:
>>=======
>>version: 0.8.14 (i386/linux)
>>flags: STATS:Off, USE_IPV6, USE_TCP, DISABLE_NAGLE, DNS_IP_HACK, SHM_MEM,
>>SHM_MM
>>AP, PKG_MALLOC, F_MALLOC, FAST_LOCK-ADAPTIVE_WAIT
>>ADAPTIVE_WAIT_LOOPS=1024, MAX_RECV_BUFFER_SIZE 262144, MAX_LISTEN 16,
>>MAX_URI_SI
>>ZE 1024, BUF_SIZE 65535
>>@(#) $Id: main.c,v 1.168.4.3 2004/06/28 15:41:21 andrei Exp $
>>main.c compiled on 23:59:48 Aug 24 2004 with gcc 3.3
>>
>>ser config file:
>>================
>>see enclosed ser.cfg
>>
>>ser log file at loglevel 8:
>>===========================
>>see enclosed ser.log
>>
>>
>>Best regards,
>>Peter
Hello All.
I have an ATA from a company called WorldAccxx and I'm trying to get it working
with ser. ser is serving multiple domains right now. My question is this;
This particular ATA never sends <user>@domain.com when registering. Instead it
always seems to send <user>@11.11.11.11 so is there a way to associate this ATA
with a particular served domain?
Also, can anyone tell me if this ATA seems to be RFC3261 compliant? It seems to
me that if I configure the ATA to use a SIP proxy of sip.mycompany.com and it
sends the REGISTER message as <user>@some.ip.address then something is wrong.
Regards,
Paul
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com
Hello All.
I'm using ser-0.8.99-dev10 and I've noticed that when I restart ser I get the
following messages in /var/log/messages (NOTE: None of these are really
expired).
Oct 15 15:39:52 sip01 /usr/local/sbin/ser[23470]: Binding
'5551112222(a)mycompany.com','sip:5551112222@68.68.68.68:50040;user=phone' has
expired
Oct 15 15:39:52 sip01 /usr/local/sbin/ser[23470]: Binding
'1011(a)mycompany.com','sip:1011@68.68.68.68:50009;user=phone' has expired
Oct 15 15:39:52 sip01 /usr/local/sbin/ser[23470]: Binding
'1231231234(a)dialez.com','sip:1231231234@68.68.68.68:5060;user=phone' has
expired
Oct 15 15:39:52 sip01 /usr/local/sbin/ser[23470]: Binding
'1002(a)mycompany.com','sip:1002@68.68.68.68:58249;user=phone' has expired
Shouldn't ser keep non-expired rows in the location table?
Any thoughts?
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com
Hello,
I just noticed that SER is not generating a 200 OK as reply for a CANCEL but
rather a 200 cancelling.
Then it is also generating a 487 Request cancelled what is supposed to be
generated by the other end device reveiving the CANCEL.
How is this possible? Is this according to RFC3261?
Regards,
Martin
Hi, I'm currently running SER 0.8.14, radiusclient 0.4.4, and freeradius 1.0.1 on slackware 10.0.
With the current setup, it works fine if freeradius is on the same machine as SER. However if I install freeradius on a separate machine, it doesn't work.
When I view the syslogs of the machine where SER + radiusclient is installed it shows:
rc_send_server: no reply from RADIUS server radiusserver.aebc.com:1812
In the setup of /usr/local/etc/radiusclient/servers, I have an entry of the radius server:
209.53.197.101 mysecret
I also have the same in /usr/local/etc/radiusclient/radiusclient.conf
authserver 209.53.197.101
acctserver 209.53.197.101
Thanks
Johnny Lum, Programmer
VoIP, ADSL, Wireless Hot Spots, 56K Roaming, Call Center, Server Hosting
www.aebc.com Sales: 604.288.1088 Support: 604.279.9078 Fax: 604.207.0155
Hey
I need to do peering between two SER SIP networks (and later on of course other routers) but ... Anybody have a pointer as to how I set that up ?
I tried finding it in the admin guide, but my knowledge apparently isn't good enough yet ;-)
Two-way peering - so network 1 can call through network 2, but network 2 can also call through network 1.
Hello,
Is there any flag to turn on an option to SER generate
a CANCEL message for branches (parallel forking) that
haven't sent out a 100 Trying?
If I'm not wrong it will send a CANCEL only for the
ones who sent a 100 Trying, am I missing something?
Thanks and regards,
Chuck.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
We do this by using SERs replicate function to replicate all registration
transactions from one SER server to the other. We use this functionality
for failover between ser-server1, and ser-server2 but it sounds like you
could us it similarly in your situation.
Just do something like this in your ser.cfg. (I am assuming that the IP of
your 2nd server is 192.168.0.1 in this example).
if (method=="REGISTER") {
if (src_ip!=192.168.0.1) { # authenticate all requests not coming from
the secondary ser server
if (!www_authorize("my.sipdomain.com", "subscriber")) {
www_challenge("my.sipdomain.com", "0");
break;
};
};
save("location");
# replicate the registration to secondary ser server - if it did not
originate from ser-server2
if (src_ip!=192.168.0.1) {
t_replicate("192.168.0.1","5060");
};
break;
};
Hope this helps.
Darren Nay
VOIP Network Administrator
Ionosphere, Inc.
dnay(a)ionosphere.net
_____
From: Jacob Bøg Albers [mailto:jacob@storskoven.dk]
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2004 8:42 AM
To: serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
Subject: [Serusers] Peering
Hey
I need to do peering between two SER SIP networks (and later on of course
other routers) but ... Anybody have a pointer as to how I set that up ?
I tried finding it in the admin guide, but my knowledge apparently isn't
good enough yet ;-)
Two-way peering - so network 1 can call through network 2, but network 2 can
also call through network 1.
