sr-users February 2004

sr-users@lists.kamailio.org

144 participants
382 discussions

Re: [Serusers] SER and presence extensions

by CURRO_DOMINGUEZ

Hello and thanks for your answers. However, I have two problems with SER NOTIFY. First. When a new user UA1 sends REGISTER, SER doesn't send a NOTIFY to users subscribed to Presence of this new user. I don't know whether this is a correct behaviour or not. Second. An UA1 receives NOTIFY from SER with status="closed", althoug the UA2 is 'open'. Does SER use 'location' table to know if user is 'open'? Have some of you had a similar problem or is that I am missing something? Thank you very much for your help. Curro > > ----- Mensaje Original ----- > De: Klaus Darilion <klaus.mailinglists(a)pernau.at> > Fecha: Martes, Febrero 3, 2004 6:02 pm > Asunto: Re: [Serusers] SER and presence extensions > > > I didn't had this problems. I installed 4.7 over 5.0 and now I'm > > using > > RTC 1.0 again (verified in the SIP messages of the Windows > > Messenger). > > If this doesn't worked, try to find the rtcdll.dll in the windows > > directory and then ....no, I won't tell you to delete dll's from > > your PC ;-) > > > > there is also a second dll, but I don't know the exact name. > > > > klaus > > > > Edson Gellert Schubert wrote: > > > > > Yes, Klaus... > > > > > > As stated previously on the list, WM 5.0 introduced some "M$- > > extensions"....> 4.6/4.7 honors in a better way RFCs... > > > > > > Before reading the considerations of 5.0 extensions, I had it > > installed :( > > > After the readings, I try to uninstall it, but as stated on the > > list, some > > > DLLs stays.... My question is how to make a complete remove of > > 5.0 version > > > so that the system become clean to recieve 4.6/4.7 version? Any > tip?> > > > > Edson. > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Klaus Darilion" <klaus.mailinglists(a)pernau.at> > > > To: "CURRO_DOMINGUEZ" <CURRO_DOMINGUEZ(a)terra.es> > > > Cc: <serusers(a)lists.iptel.org> > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 2:10 PM > > > Subject: Re: [Serusers] SER and presence extensions > > > > > > > > > > > >>>You can try Windows Messenger 4.6/4.7 or kphone under Linux. > > >>> > > >>>klaus > > >>> > > >>>CURRO_DOMINGUEZ wrote: > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>>Hello everybody > > >>>> > > >>>>I am doing some tests aboute presence module and I would like > > to make > > >>>>you some questions and comments. I've been diving into the > > mailing list > > >>>>(a great way to learn) and I've configured SER with this: > > >>>> > > >>>>if (method=="SUBSCRIBE") { > > >>>> if (t_newtran()){ > > >>>> handle_subscription("registrar"); > > >>>> break; > > >>>> }; > > >>>>}; > > >>>> > > >>>>Everything seems to work OK. I just want to work with 'open' > > and 'close' > > >>>>states. But Windows Messenger 5.0 receives NOTIFY from SER > and > > doesn't>>>>update state. I think the matter is that WM doesn't > > understand the xml > > >>>>file sent with NOTIFY, because use its own xml file. > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>Have you tested with any UA on Windows that use the standard > > XML file > > >>>>(like SER) to manage presence? And where can I find > > specifications for > > >>>>this XML file? > > >>>> > > >>>>I have read a Jan's mail(May-03) where he said that there are > some> >>>>drafts that extends presence and that they were going to > > implement this > > >>>>on SER. I would like to know whether these drafts are already > > RFC or > > >>>>have been some advance on this feature. > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>Thank you very much. > > >>>> > > >>>>Curro > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>_______________________________________________ > > >>>>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, 9 months

Re: [Serusers] Windows messenger 5.0 and instant messages not

by CURRO_DOMINGUEZ

Hello I am testing Windows Messenger 5.0 and other UA, so this is my experience. I have no problems with SER as a proxy and WM 5.0. REGISTRAR and SUBSCRIBE are ok, Voice Call are ok, but IM doesn't work. And when I try to use SER with a Presence Module, Windows Messenger doesn't work. Soon, I'll start with kphone ipv4 and ipv6. Regards, Curro ----- Mensaje Original ----- De: Johan Larsson <johan(a)ludd.luth.se> Fecha: Jueves, Febrero 5, 2004 8:20 am Asunto: Re: [Serusers] Windows messenger 5.0 and instant messages not > On Wed, 4 Feb 2004, Nils Ohlmeier wrote: > > > On Tuesday 03 February 2004 20:16, Craig Gill wrote: > > > Did you ever figure out how to get Windows Messenger 5.0 to > work with ser? > > > > You will not get it working with SER because Messenger 5.0 does > not behave RFC > > conform. So probably the only way to get Messenger 5.0 IM > working is to buy > > and use M$ propritary communication server (or however they call > their> product). > > What is the problem seen with Windows Messenger 5.0 and SER? > > Johan > > _______________________________________________ > Serusers mailing list > serusers(a)lists.iptel.org > http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers >

20 years, 9 months

[Serusers] SERWeb

by Joao Sampaio

Hello, I've already my Serweb running almost ok, just some things not working and some doubts that I will ask next: 1st- In the MissedCalls tab I get always the "error in SQL query, line: 77" . I am running mysql 3.32.58. It needs mysql 4.0? 2nd- How the Message Store and Voicemail tab workes? Is there anything related with the SEMS voicemail? Thank you. Best regards, João ________________________ João Sampaio PT Inovação, SA SRM - Serviços e Redes Móveis email: est-j-sampaio(a)ptinovacao.pt Tlf: +351 234511160-1907 / +351 234403421

20 years, 9 months

Re: [Serusers] udp vs. tcp traffic

by Annie Sasidar

Klaus, I am using WinCE4.2 X86Emulator Board Support Package and IPPhone as the platform. The client uses a file to register with the server.In that file i have specified the ip address of the SIP server. I have not specified any port number. Below is a part of the debug o/p: -VoIPMgr::OnRegistrationStateChangeEvent ASYNC_SOCKET::OnConnectReady - Error: 10061 dest: 192.168.1.141:5061 ASYNC_SOCKET::OnConnectError (0x8007274d) - enter SIP_MSG_PROCESSOR::OnConnectComplete connect failed 8007274d retry connecting via HTTP tunnel >From this debug o/p i take that the client is trying to register on port 5061 for udp. Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks, Annie

20 years, 9 months

[Serusers] Configuration weirdness (after reboot, not working)

by ser＠geek.be

Hi all, I'm having some weird problems.. we had a perfectly working config (below), that worked for several weeks (sip to sip [even behind nat], several devices (budgetone, kphone, ata, ..). Yesterday we rebooted the server, and it seems that nothing works anymore, both endpoints don't hear any sound/voice, sometimes only one endpoint. I see the 2 endpoints/ips connecting to rtpproxy (SERMediaProxy), but no sound. Even if I force all codecs to e.g. PCMA on both ends. Can't figure it out, even the example config nathelper.cfg doesn't work anymore, the same problem, no sound. Does anyone had the same problem, or knows what I need to look at ? I know it's little info, but I've no idea what to paste, or even where to look. ---------- debug=7 # debug level (cmd line: -dddddddddd) fork=yes log_stderror=no # (cmd line: -E) 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" listen=<ip> # ------------------ module loading ---------------------------------- loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/auth_db.so" loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/auth.so" loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/mysql.so" loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/sl.so" loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/tm.so" loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/rr.so" loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/maxfwd.so" loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/usrloc.so" loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/registrar.so" loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/textops.so" loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/group.so" loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/nathelper.so" loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/uri.so" loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/acc.so" loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/xlog.so" # ----------------- setting module-specific parameters --------------- modparam("usrloc", "db_mode", 2) modparam("auth_db", "calculate_ha1", yes) modparam("auth_db", "password_column", "password") modparam("rr", "enable_full_lr", 1) modparam("registrar", "nat_flag", 6) modparam("nathelper", "natping_interval", 30) modparam("nathelper", "ping_nated_only", 1) modparam("acc", "log_level", 1) modparam("acc", "log_flag", 1) #modparam("acc", "db_flag", 1) <-- doens't work anymore with the new SER stable (from cvs) modparam("group", "use_domain", 0) modparam("tm", "fr_inv_timer", 15) modparam("tm", "fr_timer", 10) route{ 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; }; if (nat_uac_test("3")) { if (method == "REGISTER" || ! search("^Record-Route:")) { fix_nated_contact(); if (method == "INVITE") { fix_nated_sdp("1"); }; force_rport(); setflag(6); }; }; if (!method=="REGISTER") record_route(); if (loose_route()) { append_hf("P-hint: rr-enforced\r\n"); route(1); break; }; if (!uri==myself) { append_hf("P-hint: outbound\r\n"); route(1); break; }; if (uri==myself) { if (method=="REGISTER") { if (!www_authorize("myhost.com", "subscriber")) { www_challenge("myhost.com", "0"); break; }; if (!save("location")) { sl_reply_error(); } break; }; if (!lookup("location")) { if (uri=~"^sip:0[1-9]*@*") { rewritehostport("217.22.59.10:5060"); } else if (uri=~"^sip:\*99@*" || uri=~"^sip:99[0-9]*@*") { rewritehostport("217.22.59.10:5060"); } else { sl_send_reply("403", "Permission Denied"); break; }; }; }; append_hf("P-hint: usrloc applied\r\n"); route(1); } route[1] { setflag(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; }; if (isflagset(6)) { force_rtp_proxy(); }; if (!t_relay()) { sl_reply_error(); }; } onreply_route[1] { if (isflagset(6) && status =~ "(183)|2[0-9][0-9]") { fix_nated_contact(); force_rtp_proxy(); } else if (nat_uac_test("1")) { fix_nated_contact(); }; }

20 years, 9 months

AW: [Serusers] New versions of RTP proxy/nathelper commited

by Brunner, Armin

Maxim, there seem a problem with the IPv6 part of the rtpproxy. All works fine with nathelper/rtpproxy inthe ipv4 mode (rtpproxy without an address or only with the "-l IPv4-address" option). But if I start rtpproxy in the IPv6-mode with "-6 IPv6-address" crashes as soon there is a session atempt: boostie:/home/brunner # ser/rtpproxy/rtpproxy -f -6 2001:620:8:801:201:2ff:fe94:8e10 rtpproxy: rtpproxy started, pid 9787 rtpproxy: new session CD1B7AB1-2784-4203-AF8F-7DAC8AE4E250(a)192.94.63.109 <mailto:CD1B7AB1-2784-4203-AF8F-7DAC8AE4E250@192.94.63.109> , tag 2953072307 requested segmentation fault I'm using the newest CVS versions of nathelper and rtpproxy. Regards Armin P.S. In your announcment of the new rtpproxy/nathelper version you mention that there is no IPv6 address preloading. Because not writen any C-program for 15 years it would be definitly not trivial for me to do this extension. You you think to finish the IPv6 support in nathelper/rtpproxy in the next 3 month? -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: serusers-bounces(a)lists.iptel.org im Auftrag von Maxim Sobolev Gesendet: Sa 31.01.2004 20:56 An: Jan Janak Cc: serusers(a)lists.iptel.org Betreff: Re: [Serusers] New versions of RTP proxy/nathelper commited Yes, indeed, there was a problem with force_rtp_proxy(). I've just committed a fix (1.38). The problem was that you were trying to use results of one call to ip_addr2a() after another call to that function. Since ip_addr2a() returns pointer to a static internal buffer, it was leading to incorrect results. -Maxim Jan Janak wrote: > What change do you mean ? I reviewed and commited some changes on behalf > of Tristan, so please blame me (and provide me with more details if > possible) :-). > > Could you make sure that the version before my commit works ? > > Jan. > > On 30-01 11:14, Andres wrote: > >>Update... >> >>I have now tested multiple versions of nathelper from January. The >>problem appears after the changes made by Tristan Colgate on >>2004-01-16. Nathelper/rtpproxy works fine on the version from 2004-01-15. >> >>Can you take a look at this Tristan? Maxim? >> >>Thanks, >> >>-- >>Andres >>Network Admin >>http://www.telesip.net >> >> >> >>Andres wrote: >> >> >>>Hi Maxim, >>> >>>I am in the process of testing this new version in our lab with >>>0.8.13. We have been using the older versions with great success for >>>many months now. But the new version does not work. We are testing >>>with Grandstream and Sipura units. When a Sipura calls another >>>Sipura, the nathelper/rtpproxy fails to insert the proper "Connection >>>Information (c)" in the SDP. Instead of filling in the IP Address of >>>the RTPProxy it just leaves the same address and adds these four >>>characters "\000" to the end which seem to make the other Sipura >>>unhappy because it terminates the call right away with a "488- Not >>>Acceptable" Message. >>> >>>When a Grandstream is making the call, the same thing happens, with >>>the exception of the four characters. (IP Address in Connection >>>Information (c) is not updated) >>> >>>The Ports do seem to get changed appropiately by the >>>nathelper/rtpproxy in both cases. But since the IP is not substituted >>>there is no chance of audio being setup properly. >>> >>>I can send the Ethereal traces if you want. >>> >>>Let me know what we can do to fix this issue. >>> >>>Thanks, >>> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>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, 9 months

[Serusers] Looking for SIP Application Server

by Youssef Chadli

Hello, I am working on developpement of SIP services. I have the Iptel SER proxy. In addition of the SER server I need a SIP Application Server. So, Is there any body who can tell me where I can get a free or low cost SIP Application Server. Thanking you in advance Youssef CHADLI +33 1 60 76 40 53 ****************************** Institut National des Télécommunications 9 rue Charles Fourier, 91011 Evry cedex FRANCE www.int-evry.fr

20 years, 9 months

[Serusers] Windows messenger 5.0 and instant messages not

by Craig Gill

Did you ever figure out how to get Windows Messenger 5.0 to work with ser? Thanks, Craig

20 years, 9 months

[Serusers] About ser and fcp...

by jimmy huang

Hi , I have some questions about ser . I am building a voip environment with ser 0.8.12 and kphone 3.11 it works in intranet (IM , Voice...) now i want to try across NAT/Firewall , means client A is in private network , and client B is in public network , server is in public network what should i need to do? (1)install fcpd in the machine which sip proxy install in ? and in ser what module should i compile fcp or ... ? (but i can't find fcp module in 0.8.12..) or has anyone has the experience can tell me ? thanks jimmy

20 years, 9 months

Re: [Serusers] udp vs. tcp traffic

by Annie Sasidar

Klaus, The application is trying to connect to the server on 192.168.1.141:5061 while ser is not listening on that port for tcp nor udp traffic. I tried to include the following line in ser.cfg listen=192.168.1.141:5061 I restarted ser but it still does not seem to be listening on this port. What should i do so that ser listens to udp traffic on port 5061? Please help. Thanks, Annie

20 years, 9 months

← Newer
1
...
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
...
39
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 February 2004