sr-users February 2004

sr-users@lists.kamailio.org

144 participants
382 discussions

by Adrian Georgescu

You have several choices (like always on Unix): 1. Do like this: if (method=="INVITE") { # save messages in mysql for CDRTool exec_msg("/etc/ser/sertrace.py; exit 1"); }; Make your own script to replace /etc/ser/sertrace.py You can log the whole SIP packet from STDIN to mysql and index it by environment variable set by SER (SIP_HF_CALLID). To scale it up a bit you demonize the logger to reuse only one mysql connection. 2. Log all SIP packets to a log file with a script like this one: <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< #!/bin/sh # # chkconfig: 2345 20 80 # description: controls execution of SIP sniffer # processname: ng NAME=ngrep OPTIONS="-L -d bond0 -t port 5060" BIN=/usr/bin/ngrep ROTATE=/usr/sbin/rotatelogs RETVAL=0 # See how we were called. case "$1" in start) killall $NAME echo -n "Starting SIP sniffer: " $BIN $OPTIONS 2>&1 | $ROTATE /var/log/ser/trace/sip 86400 & RETVAL=$? echo "ngrep." ;; stop) echo -n "Stopping SIP ngrep: " killall $NAME RETVAL=$? echo "done." ;; restart) #$0 stop $0 start RETVAL=$? ;; *) echo "Usage: $0 {start|stop|restart}" exit 1 esac exit $RETVAL <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< -- Adrian How to get the call log and registration request in a different file other that /var/log/messages. Also, can i get some more details on autherisation and accountingpackets. Rt now, iam getting only details given below. ACC: transaction answered: method=BY E, i-uri=sip:12334 at 10.10.0.1, o-uri=sip:12334 at 10.10.0.1, call_id =4F6F069B-4BF4-4CC7-B99C-4E24F0E2C667 at 192.168.10.154, from=Manu Sip <sip:manu at s ip.test.net>;tag=2654486816, code=200 thank you. MANU.

20 years, 6 months

Re: [Serusers] rewrite & ACK forwarding problem

by lgfausak＠august.net

I have also had problems with getting the ACK back. I don't completely understand your configuration, you must allow for packets going both directions, right? Here is my config : route { # check to see if the message has been around too long # probably means that it is looping # if (!mf_process_maxfwd_header("10")) { log("LOG: Too many hops\n"); sl_send_reply("483","Too Many Hops"); break; }; # # make sure the length of the message isn't too long! # if (len_gt( max_len )) { sl_send_reply("513", "Wow -- Message too large"); break; }; # # do the loose-routing thing, this is important! # if(loose_route()) { log(1,"doing top loose route"); t_relay(); break; }; # this is where I was dropping the ACKS. # I was simply dropping these, but they must be relayed # because they can be ACKs if(!(uri==myself)) { if(!t_relay()) { sl_reply_error(); break; }; break; }; This gets the ACKs through for me. By the way, I have this configured with Cisco ATAs, version 2.16. ---greg > >I have the same problem and posed it to the group yesterday ([Serusers] >Ignored 200 OK message.) So far the only workaround that I have found is to >use the rules in my gateway to rewrite the dialed digits before sending them >to the PSTN PRI, thus leaving the origianl URI intact for SIP >communications. > >One person told me that this is a bug in the Cisco ATA, but it happens on my >IPDialog phones also. It seems to me that the INVITE is being processed by >the SER dial rules and is rewritten, but the ACK is not. > >Sean >_______________________________________________ > >Sean Robertson > >NETXUSA >p. 800-289-6389 >f. 864-233-4344 "Ask me about Voice over IP." >http://www.netxusa.com/ > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Alexander Mayrhofer" <axelm(a)nic.at> >To: <serusers(a)lists.iptel.org> >Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 12:15 PM >Subject: [Serusers] rewrite & ACK forwarding problem > > >> >> Hi, >> >> we're running SER together with a PSTN Gateway. Before a call get's >> forwarded to the gateway, we are rewriting the request URI to make >> rewriting on the GW as simple as possible: >> >> route { >> ... >> strip(3); # +43xxx -> xxx >> prefix("0"); # xxx -> 0xxx >> rewritehostport(xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx, 5060); # request to gateway >> route(1); >> break; >> ... >> >> SIP call flow looks like (record route enabled): >> >> (1) phone -> SER >> INVITE sip:*43699xxxxxxxx@nic.at43.at SIP/2.0 >> >> (2) SER -> phone >> SIP/2.0 100 trying -- your call is important to us >> >> (3) SER -> GW >> INVITE sip:0699xxxxxxxx@xx.xx.xx.xx:5060 SIP/2.0 >> >> (4) GW -> SER >> SIP/2.0 100 Trying >> >> (5) GW -> SER >> SIP/2.0 183 Session Progress >> >> (6) SER -> phone >> SIP/2.0 183 Session Progress >> >> (7) GW -> SER >> SIP/2.0 180 Ringing >> >> (8) SER -> phone >> SIP/2.0 180 Ringing >> >> (9) GW -> SER >> SIP/2.0 200 OK >> Contact: <sip:0699xxxxxxxx@xx.xx.xx.xx:5060> >> >> (10) SER -> phone >> SIP/2.0 200 OK >> Contact: <sip:0699xxxxxxx@xx.xx.xx.xx:5060> >> >> [ call established, we can talk, but ... ] >> >> (11) phone -> SER >> ACK sip:0699xxxxxxxx@xx.xx.xx.xx:5060 SIP/2.0 >> >> --> Here starts the problem. That ACK (11) never gets forwarded to the >> Gateway, so after a few seconds, the GW starts over at (9). Those three >> packets (9-11) repeat a few times until GW runs into a timeout and drops >> the call. >> >> I have the impression that SER can't match the packet to the previous >> requests because of the rewritten URI. Is that correct? >> >> The only output at debug level 3 is: >> >> Warning: sl_send_reply: I won't send a reply for ACK!! >> >> Is that a routing goof somewhere in our scripts or is that a more >> generic problem? Is the problem that the warning indicates somehow >> related to the fact that the ACK is not being forwarded? >> >> Help appreciated. >> >> cheers >> >> axelm >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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, 6 months

[Serusers] ENUM anyone?

by Adrian Georgescu

Maxim, Managed DNS platform (based in Amsterdam) provides all required functions to managed User or Infrastructure ENUM in a controlled environment. The system went through an 8 months trial period and the results will be presented on the 24-th of February at ETSI http://www.etsi.org/plugtests/02UpcomingEvents/ENUMWORKSHOP.htm The system entered in production phase just last week. See www.ag-projects.com for more information. --- Adrian Georgescu ag-projects.com >>>>>>> Folks, One of our clients asks us if we can set up ENUM client for him, so that his customers are able to call users in big free and commercial VoIP SIP networks. He claims that at least some of them already have ENUM zones delegated to them and operating. Can somebody shed some light on current state of ENUM and whether or not it is feasible to use it now. Thanks! -Maxim

20 years, 8 months

[Serusers] rtpproxy/nathelper configuration issues. i think.

by Eric C. Snowdeal III

i've been getting my sea legs with SER and am having trouble getting rtpproxy to nathelper to work correctly with my setup. since everything works fine if i test the scenario with a freeworld dialup account, i'm assuming that my problems are solely due to the vastness of my ignorance on how to configure SER correctly. i have three x-lite clients [ one is running on windows 2000 not sure of the build number, but it's the latest download from the website; the other two clients are both build 1101 on mac 10.2.3. SER running on a rh9 box on a public IP with rtpproxy. i installed ser-0.8.12-0.i386.rpm which i downloaded from the ftp server. the x-lite clients are sitting behind a linksys befw11s4 nat router. i can run SER without nathelper/rtpproxy and make and receive calls to clients outside the my network. however, things fall apart quickly when i try to run more than one client behind the nat [ lost audio, timeouts etc] which i presume is what nathelper is supposed to deal with. if try to run to use nathelper, i can't make a call from a one client to another client behind the lan. the calls won't go through - they simply timeout. i downloaded and compiled rtpproxy which i obtained from the portaone website and simply started it from the command line. i can't figure out how to get any debugging messages from rtpproxy, but i can see that the process exists and /var/run/rtpproxy.sock is created. i altered ser.cfg using the template i found in the ser-0.8.12_src tarball [ /modules/nathelper/nathelper.cfg ]. see my config below [1]. i understand that things have changed quite a bit in the CVS head, but i tried to compile and install the latest CVS version, but i ran into a host of config errors using the nathelper.cfg supplied, so i decided to backtrack, gather my wits, and stick with the released version. the x-lite clients appear to register appropriately with the server [2 - public ip addresses have been changed to protect the innocent]. to my untrained eye, these messages look the same as what i see when i test things using freeworld dialup accounts and i can make a call to another client on the same lan segment - i.e. the internal IP addresses are being sent. the location database also shows that the internal IP addresses are being used [3], but i don't know if this is what i want or not. oh. i'm also using my.public.box - a FQDN - as in the x-lite fields where it asks for "Domain/Realm", "SIP Proxy" and "Out Bound Proxy". so anyone care to grab me by the lapels and point out what i'm obviously doing wrong :-) [1] # # $Id: ser.cfg,v 1.21.4.1 2003/11/10 15:35:15 andrei Exp $ # # simple quick-start config script # # ----------- 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 debug=7 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" # ------------------ module loading ---------------------------------- # Uncomment this if you want to use SQL database #loadmodule "/usr/lib/ser/modules/mysql.so" loadmodule "/usr/lib/ser/modules/nathelper.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" # Uncomment this if you want digest authentication # mysql.so must be loaded ! #loadmodule "/usr/lib/ser/modules/auth.so" #loadmodule "/usr/lib/ser/modules/auth_db.so" # ----------------- setting module-specific parameters --------------- # -- usrloc params -- modparam("usrloc", "db_mode", 0) # Uncomment this if you want to use SQL database # for persistent storage and comment the previous line #modparam("usrloc", "db_mode", 2) # -- auth params -- # Uncomment if you are using auth module # #modparam("auth_db", "calculate_ha1", yes) # # If you set "calculate_ha1" parameter to yes (which true in this config), # uncomment also the following parameter) # #modparam("auth_db", "password_column", "password") # -- rr params -- # add value to ;lr param to make some broken UAs happy modparam("rr", "enable_full_lr", 1) alias="my.public.box" # ------------------------- request routing logic ------------------- # main routing logic route{ # initial sanity checks -- messages with # max_forwards==0, or excessively long requests if (!mf_process_maxfwd_header("10")) { sl_send_reply("483","Too Many Hops"); break; }; if ( msg:len > max_len ) { sl_send_reply("513", "Message too big"); break; }; # compulsory processing of Route header fields and adding RR loose_route(); /* registration (uses rewritten contacts) */ if (method=="REGISTER") { save("location"); break; }; if (method=="INVITE") { record_route(); if (isflagset(1)) { # ATA ? fix_nated_sdp("3"); }; /* set up reply processing */ t_on_reply("1"); }; if (method == "INVITE" || method == "CANCEL") { if (!lookup("location")) { sl_send_reply("404", "Not Found"); break; }; }; /* set up reply processing and forward statefuly */ t_relay(); } # all incoming replies for t_onrepli-ed transactions enter here onreply_route[1] { if (status=~"2[0-9][0-9]") fix_nated_contact(); fix_nated_sdp("3"); } [2] Established SIP protocol listen on: 192.168.1.100:5060 Discovered Restricted Cone NAT Firewall SIP: 192.168.1.100:5060 RTP: 192.168.1.100:8000 NAT: my.router.public.ip PROXY#0: ser.public.ip:5060 OUTBOUND-PROXY#0: ser.public.ip:5060 SEND >> ser.public.ip:5060 REGISTER sip:my.public.box SIP/2.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.1.100:5060;rport;branch=z9hG4bK9DF27D98551C11D882E3000393B930BA From: snowdeal <sip:123@my.public.box> To: snowdeal <sip:123@my.public.box> Contact: "snowdeal" <sip:123@192.168.1.100:5060> Call-ID: 9DA51D06551C11D882E3000393B930BA(a)my.public.box CSeq: 56648 REGISTER Expires: 1800 Max-Forwards: 70 User-Agent: X-Lite build 1101 Content-Length: 0 RECEIVE << ser.public.ip:5060 SIP/2.0 200 OK Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.1.100:5060;rport=5060;branch=z9hG4bK9DF27D98551C11D882E3000393B930BA;received=my.router.public.ip From: snowdeal <sip:123@my.public.box> To: snowdeal <sip:123@my.public.box>;tag=b27e1a1d33761e85846fc98f5f3a7e58.3894 Call-ID: 9DA51D06551C11D882E3000393B930BA(a)my.public.box CSeq: 56648 REGISTER Contact: <sip:123@192.168.1.100:5060>;q=0.00;expires=1800 Server: Sip EXpress router (0.8.12 (i386/linux)) Content-Length: 0 Warning: 392 ser.public.ip:5060 "Noisy feedback tells: pid=21653 req_src_ip=my.router.public.ip req_src_port=5060 in_uri=sip:my.public.box out_uri=sip:my.public.box via_cnt==1" ---------- Established SIP protocol listen on: 192.168.1.101:5060 Discovered Restricted Cone NAT Firewall SIP: 192.168.1.101:5060 RTP: 192.168.1.101:8000 NAT: my.router.public.ip PROXY#0: 69.55.224.151:5060 OUTBOUND-PROXY#0: 69.55.224.151:5060 SEND >> ser.public.ip:5060 REGISTER sip:my.public.box SIP/2.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.1.101:5060;rport;branch=z9hG4bKAC7BFFFD551C11D8B317000A957BC13A From: kristine <sip:456@my.public.box> To: kristine <sip:456@my.public.box> Contact: "kristine" <sip:456@192.168.1.101:5060> Call-ID: AC7B8E18551C11D8B317000A957BC13A(a)my.public.box CSeq: 55034 REGISTER Expires: 1800 Max-Forwards: 70 User-Agent: X-Lite build 1101 Content-Length: 0 RECEIVE << ser.public.ip:5060 SIP/2.0 200 OK Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.1.101:5060;rport=15060;branch=z9hG4bKAC7BFFFD551C11D8B317000A957BC13A;received=my.router.public.ip From: kristine <sip:456@my.public.box> To: kristine <sip:456@my.public.box>;tag=b27e1a1d33761e85846fc98f5f3a7e58.b0ef Call-ID: AC7B8E18551C11D8B317000A957BC13A(a)my.public.box CSeq: 55034 REGISTER Contact: <sip:456@192.168.1.101:5060>;q=0.00;expires=1800 Server: Sip EXpress router (0.8.12 (i386/linux)) Content-Length: 0 Warning: 392 ser.public.ip:5060 "Noisy feedback tells: pid=21658 req_src_ip=my.router.public.ip req_src_port=15060 in_uri=sip:my.public.box out_uri=sip:my.public.box via_cnt==1 [3] ===Domain list=== ---Domain--- name : 'location' size : 512 table: 0x402d60d8 d_ll { n : 2 first: 0x402d80e0 last : 0x402d81c8 } ...Record(0x402d80e0)... domain: 'location' aor : '123' ~~~Contact(0x402d8120)~~~ domain : 'location' aor : '123' Contact: 'sip:123@192.168.1.100:5060' Expires: 583 q : 0.00 Call-ID: '9DA51D06551C11D882E3000393B930BA(a)my.public.box' CSeq : 56648 replic : 0 State : CS_NEW Flags : 0 next : (nil) prev : (nil) ~~~/Contact~~~~ .../Record... ...Record(0x402d81c8)... domain: 'location' aor : '456' ~~~Contact(0x402d8208)~~~ domain : 'location' aor : '456' Contact: 'sip:456@192.168.1.101:5060' Expires: 614 q : 0.00 Call-ID: 'AC7B8E18551C11D8B317000A957BC13A(a)my.public.box' CSeq : 55034 replic : 0 State : CS_NEW Flags : 0 next : (nil) prev : (nil) ~~~/Contact~~~~ .../Record... ---/Domain--- ===/Domain list===

20 years, 8 months

[Serusers] Changing of Realname

by Atle Samuelsen

Hey... When you call a cisco 7960 f.eks. you see a text string with the name of a user. .. Is it possible "hook" ser upto a database, witch contains the whole phonecatalog. then make ser lookup a number, then put it into the realname feeld ? - Atle

20 years, 8 months

[Serusers] URI parsing problem from ser to MSN through jabberd

by voice

アルファ・ブロード・ビジネス jabberd 1.4.3 on another Red Hat 9　完了

20 years, 8 months

[Serusers] SER and rtpproxy

by Fábio Silvestri

Hi! After a long search on maillinst, I'm trying to run SER with rtpproxy, for resolve problems with SIP UA (ata186) behind a nat, but I'm still get in trouble. I have setup ser.cfg to use rtpproxy, like this: ... if (method=="INVITE") { log(1,"INVITE\n"); fix_nated_sdp("1"); record_route(); force_rport(); setflag(1); force_rtp_proxy(); t_on_reply("1"); } ... onreply_route[1] { log(1, ">=====> reply 1\n"); if ((status=~"[12][0-9][0-9]")) { force_rtp_proxy(); } } ... But I get this error on syslog: 0(5463) ERROR: extract_mediaip: no `c=' in SDP I'm running rtpproxy, on linux shell without any parameters. Does anybody knows what this means that message, and how to solve, a ser.cfg for rtpproxy, and others tips will be helpfull... Regards. -- |o |o A prosperidade faz amigos. A adversidade testa-os. -- Pubililius |o Syrus |o |o Fabio Silvestri |o fabio(a)informatec.com.br |o ICQ: 1667351 |o -- |o |o The number you have dialed is imaginary. Please divide by 0 and |o try again. |o |o Fabio Silvestri |o fabio(a)informatec.com.br |o ICQ: 1667351 |o

20 years, 8 months

[Serusers] windows messenger 5.0 / sip express router

by Graham Turner

Have pushed on not very far it seems with testing of SER using Windows Messenger v5.0 (on windows 2000) as UA have modded the default ser.cfg with an alias statement to reflect the domain name of the sip clients. this has allowed me to get through the process of getting to sip clients to register with the sip proxy server this is apparently confirmed by status codes of 200 reported in the SIP register messages. i fall at the next hurdle of using WM 5.0 to send an instant message (same applies to file tranfer) to a contact WM reports "The following message <message text> could not be delivered to all recipients" have captured the data from the client which i now summarise; 1. SIP message - INVITE (recipient of the message) to the sip proxy the first response is a SIP status code 100 (which i assume to be some sort of comfort signal) followed by status code 200 - which i assume to be the success response 2. followed by a BYE message from the proxy server to the client and a corresponding ACK from the client to the proxy server 3. SIP / SDP MESSAGE from the client to the proxy server note - the decode of the SDP data section reports "Invalid Line" - followed by text of the Instant message don't know if this is limitation of the Ethereal decoding ?? this is somewhat surprisingly followed by a message with Status Code 200 from client to proxy 4. final death knell of the communication would seem to be a SIP message from proxy to the client with a status code 481 - decoded as "call leg / transaction does not exist" What I am conscious of is that the source / target sip recipients "user1(a)mydomain.com and user2(a)mydomain.com" have not been defined to the SIP proxy i have taken p28 of the SER admin guide to be good to its word that "default configuration script allows users to register with each other" or have i taken this a bit too literal and that some user setup needs to be done my initial thought was that the sip register to the proxy server would create some sort of dynamic entry in what i think is termed as the user contact table in SER. don't know if i am experiencing vagaries of the Microsft messenger UA - would be glad to know of any other "soft" SIP UA applications apologies for the essay - hope the mailing list can be of help here . GT

20 years, 8 months

[Serusers] register alias

by Jakob Schlyter

hi, I have a user agent which can only register using numerical usernames (i.e. something that looks like a phone number), but I want to handle the request as if it was send with user's "normal" username (which is alphanumerical). is this doable in ser? can make the REGISTER processing look up this "alias" in a database table? jakob

20 years, 8 months

[Serusers] SER -> RTP proxy -> Cisco or Sonus

by Jac Barben

All: Please bear with me... I'm having a hard time formulating this quesiton. Basics: ser-0.8.12 from src rtpproxy = $Id: main.c,v 1.19.2.10 2003/10/18 20:14:22 sobomax Exp RH 7.3 updated to: [root@sip2 rtpproxy]# uname -a Linux sip2.claritycolorado.com 2.4.20-20.7 #1 Mon Aug 18 14:56:30 EDT 2003 i686 unknown The problem seems to be that I cannot "always" forward calls to a given destination if I have executed the force_rtp_proxy. Typically I'm using a UA like a Cisco ATA, PureData, or softphone behind a firewall. They in-turn register to SER/rtpproxy at a legal IP address; most calls are then forwarded to a Vega gateway that resides on the same network as SER/rtpproxy (in Denver). In this instance all is well. However, when I try to alt route calls to an "off-network" source (Cisco in LA and Sonus in Houston) I get two different and disturbing results: 1. Cisco will not respond to SER: Cisco simply indicates in its own logs that the INVITE is invalid and thus "trashed" the message 2. Sonus will respond with a "Bad Request" Below are some snippets: Prior to calling the route I have already I identified whether or not my UA is behind a firewall and have fix_nated_contact(), force_rport(), setflag(1) SER/rtpproxy is running at 64.47.72.12 # Clarity Vega Evergreen CO -- this one works route[1] { if (uri=~"[@:](192\.168\.|10\.|172\.(1[6-9]|2[0-9]|3[0-1])\.)" && !search("^Route:") ) { sl_send_reply("479", "We don't forward to private IP addresses"); break; }; record_route(); if (isflagset(1)) { fix_nated_sdp("1"); force_rtp_proxy(); t_on_reply("2"); } rewritehostport("64.47.72.10:5060"); t_relay(); } # Clarity Cisco AS5300 LA -- this one does not route[2] { if (uri=~"[@:](192\.168\.|10\.|172\.(1[6-9]|2[0-9]|3[0-1])\.)" && !search("^Route:") ) { sl_send_reply("479", "We don't forward to private IP addresses"); break; }; record_route(); if (isflagset(1)) { fix_nated_sdp("1"); force_rtp_proxy(); t_on_reply("2"); } rewritehostport("198.77.133.30:5060"); t_relay(); } # Clarity Sonus Houston -- this one does not route[3] { if (uri=~"[@:](192\.168\.|10\.|172\.(1[6-9]|2[0-9]|3[0-1])\.)" && !search("^Route:") ) { sl_send_reply("479", "We don't forward to private IP addresses"); break; }; record_route(); if (isflagset(1)) { fix_nated_sdp("1"); force_rtp_proxy(); t_on_reply("2"); } rewritehostport("64.47.6.6:5060"); t_relay(); } /* inbound */ onreply_route[2] { fix_nated_contact(); fix_nated_sdp("1"); force_rtp_proxy(); } Please... If you have any ideas... I'm really stuck. Jac Barben

20 years, 8 months

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 February 2004