sr-users May 2004

sr-users@lists.kamailio.org

154 participants
333 discussions

by Zeus Ng

Lately, I have been doing a lot of tests on parallel forking. I would like to know if "Flag" is transaction base, message base or uri based. Say, User2 register with SER in two locations, one is in the public network (UAPub) and the other is in the private network (UAPri). Again, suppose the NAT flag is 5. Now when User1 call User2, after lookup("location"), there will be two branches, User1 -> UAPub and User1 -> UAPri. lookup("location"); if (isflagset(5) { nathelper logic ... }; What will happen to the flag in the above case? Does each branch get a different flag? Zeus

20 years, 5 months

[Serusers] Redirect to PSTN Gateway doesn't create an accounting

by Glynn Condez

Hi Zeus, Where can i find a reference for t_relay_to_udp() ? I couldn't find it in the admin manual or maybe you can give me an example for that, thanks in advance. regards.

20 years, 5 months

[Serusers] Voice-to-email features stop now???

by Solbourne Yin

Hi, Anyone to know the Voice-to-email features service still stop for iptel.org users now? Thanks!

20 years, 5 months

[Serusers] Conference

by Kapil Dhawan

Hi List I am using SEMS and it is working ok for me.....Is there a way around that we can call a person in the running conference....as far as i know...it is conference room kind of thing....... _________________________________________________________________ Easiest Money Transfer to India. Send Money To 6000 Indian Towns. http://go.msnserver.com/IN/48198.asp Easiest Way To Send Money Home!

20 years, 5 months

[Serusers] CDR mediation for VoIP

by Adrian Georgescu

For those of you who made inquiries about CDRTool (CDR mediation software for SER, Cisco and Asterisk), I have made it available for download at: http://www.ag-projects.com/OSS_CDRtool.html CDRTool software is free to use for non comercial purposes. Best regards, Adrian Georgescu

20 years, 5 months

Re: [Serusers] TCP endpoints behind NAT

by Martin Rusnak

Andrei, > > Hello > > > > I have following use case: > > > > Endpoint1 <------> NAT <------> SER <------> NAT <------> Endpoint2 > > 10.0.0.10 TCP TCP 192.168.0.4 > > > First of all try to use UDP. NAT traversal works with UDP. Nobody really > tested it with TCP. Theoretically you could get it working with unstable > ser, special options and a well behaved UA (one that will always reuse > the tcp connections and will keep the nat bindings open). I have been using UDP for kphone and it alvays works fine. But I use Windows Messenger too and it seems to me that the TCP is the only possibility to connect it from a NAT-ed network. > Yes, ser cannot find an open tcp connection and tries to open a new one. > To get arround this you should force tcp aliases and use a very high > timeout for the tcp connections (if a connection is not used, ser will > close it after some time): > - use tcp_accept_aliases=yes in your ser.cfg if you have compliant UAs > (I think only kphone knows about them) > - use force_tcp_alias(); if your UAs don't know about tcp alias. > - edit tcp_conn.h and change TCP_CON_TIMEOUT and TCP_CON_SEND_TIMEOUT > to a very high value I changed the constants and now the connections are permanent. But I still haven't solved the problem routing messages. Here is a snippet of code from my cfg file: if (uri==myself) { if (method=="REGISTER") { # digest authentication if (!www_authorize("i-tel.sk", "subscriber")) { log(1, "Authorization failed\n"); www_challenge("i-tel.sk", "0"); log(1, "www_challenge sent\n"); break; }; # symmetric but don't advertise it -- force use of rport if (client_nat_test("3")) { log(1, "Client is behind a NAT\n"); if (! search("^Record-Route:")) { fix_contact(); force_rport(); }; }; log(1, "Forcing tcp alias\n"); force_tcp_alias(); save("location"); break; }; }; My undersanding is that the function force_tcp_alias() should add the source port of the tcp connection to the list of aliases. Then later existing connections are searched by userid and port to be reused. Please correct me if I'm wrong. In my case it doesn't work, I found the following message in the log: tcpconn_add_alias: alias port 5060 for hash 17, id 1 so it tries to add the port 5060 insted of the source port. Martin

20 years, 5 months

[Serusers] General problems with SER 0.8.12

by hasseman＠slackware.se

> Problems: > 1. SER do not start properly after reboot. > 2. Can´t not log on to SIP-server trough NAT. 1. Still wondering... 2.[SER]---[NAT]<----> dial.mine.nu <----->[Clients] I have an old p233 machine with 2st eth-cards if there is any advantage to set up a Linux-router insted of my us-robotics NAT-firewall it is possible. Note: It is only for the hosting of the SER server. In that case some iptables/SIP-hints would be nice :) Regarding the connectiontest witch i preformed with kphone. Internal case: both sending and reciving states External case: Just sending case.....retrying but no responce from SER.

20 years, 5 months

Re: [Serusers] stun - Grandstream

by Ri Liang

Hello Martin, Please advise if you have tested with more than 2 Grandstream devices in the SAME Nat ? Ri Liang ------------ Date: Sun, 30 May 2004 16:16:17 -0700 (PDT) From: Martin Winter <mwinter(a)noaccess.com> Subject: Re: [Serusers] stun - Grandstream To: Peter Boot <peter.boot(a)ihug.com.au> Cc: serusers(a)lists.iptel.org Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.4.60.0405301614070.7226(a)picard.noaccess.com> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed On Sun, 30 May 2004, Peter Boot wrote: > Has anyone been able to get the Grandstream HT486 to work with MyStun or any > > other opensource stun server ? No Problem here. I use the HT486 with stun 0.91 (Feb 21 - the latest release) from vovida.org Source is at http://sourceforge.net/projects/stun/ - Martin

20 years, 5 months

[Serusers] stun - Grandstream

by Peter Boot

Has anyone been able to get the Grandstream HT486 to work with MyStun or any other opensource stun server ? thanks Peter --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.691 / Virus Database: 452 - Release Date: 5/26/2004

20 years, 5 months

[Serusers] RTP Proxy handling on re-INVITE

by Zeus Ng

How should one handle re-INVITE with RTP Proxy on? Should one run the unforce_rtp_proxy(), run the force_rtp_proxy() again or just ignore the proxy part and forward the request to the remote client. Zeus

20 years, 5 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 May 2004