Hi,
any idea why SER (ver 8_12) requires MySql server to be running on the local machine, even if the actual MySQL SER database is running on a separate machine?
Thanks
Charles and Andrew
Hey there,
Once again, many thanks for a swift response Andrei! No, the machine
does not have two interfaces, it's a single public ip address. What do
you mean about ingress filtering? Which network dumps would be helpful?
Many thanks again!
D
-----Original Message-----
From: Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul
[mailto:pelinescu-onciul@fokus.fraunhofer.de]
Sent: 17 July 2004 09:00
To: Dave Bath
Cc: serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
Subject: Re: [Serusers] Problem with messages + msilo
On Jul 16, 2004 at 23:44, Dave Bath <dave(a)fuuz.com> wrote:
>
> Daniel,
>
> many thanks for swift response!. If I set fork=yes I get the same
error.
> If I set listen=<ip> then strange things break.. calls are no longer
> connected properly, and UAs cant log in.
>
> Any more suggestions?!
Do you have multiple network interfaces on the machine, and UAs on both
"sides"? If so turn off ingress filtering on your machine or try to add
mhomed=1 in your ser.cfg.
Also send some networks dumps along with the log entries.
Andrei
Hi guys,
What is the difference between the modules cpl and cpl-c? I wonder whether
both is needed to use the CPLed application. Any help is appreciated.
--
Regards,
Lakmal
Lankacom Services (Pvt) Ltd.
65C, Dharmapala Mawatha,
Colombo 07.
Sri Lanka.
Tel: +94-11-2437545
www.lankacom.net
Great!!
this actually worked. I've changed the port from 5060 to 5070 and now
authorization runs fine. Could anyone give a logical explanation for this?
thanks again Mike,
Bart
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Tkachuk [mailto:mike@yes.net.ua]
> Sent: maandag 19 juli 2004 13:48
> To: Bart Van Daal
> Subject: Re[4]: [Serusers] NAT vs. NoNat authentication
>
>
>
> Hello Bart,
>
> Monday, July 19, 2004, 2:27:21 PM, you wrote:
>
>
> BVD> Hi Mike,
>
> BVD> thanks for the answer and the tip..
> BVD> I can see the sipserver sending multiple '401' to the
> router, so I
> BVD> guess the router just drops these packets because it
> doesn't know
> BVD> what to do with them? I now have put the UA in dmz but
> that still
> BVD> doesn't solve the problem. I'll look further.
>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Mike Tkachuk [mailto:mike@yes.net.ua]
> >> Sent: maandag 19 juli 2004 11:56
> >> To: Bart Van Daal
> >> Subject: Re[2]: [Serusers] NAT vs. NoNat authentication
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Hello Bart,
> >>
> >> Looks like UA not receiving 401 unauthorized message from
> SER, that's
> >> why it not resend REGISTER message with calculated digest.
> >> Maybe you have some troubles with NAT on 213.219.137.148?
> >>
> >> Hint: use ngrep with -W byline option (eg: ngrep -W byline
> port 5060
> >> )
> >>
> >> --
> >> Best regards,
> >>
> >> ~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,.
> >> Mike Tkachuk, ph:380-3433-47067
> >> YES ISP, fx:380-3433-47067
> >> Valova 17, mike|a|yes.net.ua
> >> Kolomyia, www.yes.net.ua
> >> Ukraine 78200 FWD: 66518
> >>
> >> 19.07.2004
> >> ICQ# 57698805
> >> MSN: mike_tkachuk|a|hotmail.com
> >> ~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,.
> >>
>
> One thing... some routers think that they are very smart :),
> so try to change port on SER from 5060 to some other ( like:
> port=5070 ) most of routers can be fooled with it.
>
> --
> Best regards,
>
> ~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,.
> Mike Tkachuk, ph:380-3433-47067
> YES ISP, fx:380-3433-47067
> Valova 17, mike|a|yes.net.ua
> Kolomyia, www.yes.net.ua
> Ukraine 78200 FWD: 66518
>
> 19.07.2004
> ICQ# 57698805
> MSN: mike_tkachuk|a|hotmail.com
> ~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,.
>
Hello,
With the default configuration of SER 0.8.12, and two registered UA's using TCP as transport protocol, when I try to make a call between them, the call arrives in UDP packets ! This is the scenario:
TCP TCP
UA1 <---------> SIP SERVER <-----------> UA2
The UA's are registered to the SIP server using the "transport=tcp" flag in the Contact field, for example:
"Contact: 12345678@80.37.88.152:13245;transport=tcp"
But when UA1 calls UA2 ( using the TCP connection ), the INVITE is resent over UDP to the port specified in the Contact field, instead of using the established TCPconnection.
I have tried t_relay(), forward(uri:host,uri:port) and forward_tcp(uri:host,uri:port) and all resend the INVITE over UDP. ( I don´t understand why the third case fails ¿? )
I have tried t_relay_to_tcp("80.37.88.152","13245") and forward_tcp(80.37.88.152,13245) and they work fine, but I must specify the IP:Port by hand, but I need automatically the IP:Port from the table of registered ussers.
Thanks in advance for your help !
Sergio.
Thank you Andrei,
this is the ngrep output from 'ngrep bart port 5060'. I'm only
connecting the natted phone:
#
U 213.219.137.148:5060 -> 212.71.0.90:5060
REGISTER sip:ser.edpnet.net:5060 SIP/2.0..Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
213.219.137.148:50198..Supported: replaces..User-Agent: SIP201
(lp201sip.100a)..Contact: <sip:bart@10.0.0.2:5060>;expires=60..From:
<sip:bart@ser.edpnet.net> ;tag=a000002-13c4-0-42e-7
fea..To: <sip:bart@ser.edpnet.net>..Call-ID:
a000002-13c4-0-406-79bf-1..CSeq: 1 REGISTER..Content-Length:0....
#
U 212.71.0.90:5060 -> 213.219.137.148:5060
SIP/2.0 401 Unauthorized..Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
213.219.137.148:50198;rport=5060..From: <sip:bart@ser.edpnet.net>
;tag=a000002 -13c4-0-42e-7fea..To:
<sip:bart@ser.edpnet.net>;tag=61a88e7fd5f0561d96cde0cc9ecba6d7.9adf..Call-ID
: a000002-13c4-0-406-79
bf-1..CSeq: 1 REGISTER..WWW-Authenticate: Digest realm="ser.edpnet.net",
nonce="40fb952b226d9f0726f09c5fda8db0fe3b9a47d2"
..Server: Sip EXpress router (0.8.13-dev-33-usrloc
(i386/linux))..Content-Length: 0..Warning: 392 212.71.0.90:5060 "Noisy
feedback tells: pid=17817 req_src_ip=213.219.137.148 req_src_port=5060
in_uri=sip:ser.edpnet.net:5060 out_uri=sip:ser.edpnet.net:5060
via_cnt==1"....
--- the second register:
U 213.219.137.148:5060 -> 212.71.0.90:5060
REGISTER sip:ser.edpnet.net:5060 SIP/2.0..Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
213.219.137.148:50198..Supported: replaces..User-Agent: SIP201
(lp201sip.100a)..Contact: <sip:bart@10.0.0.2:5060>;expires=60..From:
<sip:bart@ser.edpnet.net> ;tag=a000002-13c4-0-42e-7
fea..To: <sip:bart@ser.edpnet.net>..Call-ID:
a000002-13c4-0-406-79bf-1..CSeq: 1 REGISTER..Content-Length:0....
#
U 212.71.0.90:5060 -> 213.219.137.148:5060
SIP/2.0 401 Unauthorized..Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
213.219.137.148:50198;rport=5060..From: <sip:bart@ser.edpnet.net>
;tag=a000002-13c4-0-42e-7fea..To:
<sip:bart@ser.edpnet.net>;tag=61a88e7fd5f0561d96cde0cc9ecba6d7.9adf..Call-ID
: a000002-13c4-0-406-79
bf-1..CSeq: 1 REGISTER..WWW-Authenticate: Digest realm="ser.edpnet.net",
nonce="40fb952cf1352a491276a2e811642001d3698340"
..Server: Sip EXpress router (0.8.13-dev-33-usrloc
(i386/linux))..Content-Length: 0..Warning: 392 212.71.0.90:5060 "Noisy
feedback tells: pid=17817 req_src_ip=213.219.137.148 req_src_port=5060
in_uri=sip:ser.edpnet.net:5060 out_uri=sip:ser.edpnet.net:5060
via_cnt==1"....
#
So I guess my UA doesn't resend the request with the proper auth?
thanks,
Bart
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul
> [mailto:pelinescu-onciul@fokus.fraunhofer.de]
> Sent: vrijdag 16 juli 2004 17:22
> To: Bart Van Daal
> Cc: serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
> Subject: Re: [Serusers] NAT vs. NoNat authentication
>
> On Jul 16, 2004 at 13:38, Bart Van Daal <B.Vandaal(a)edpnet.net> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Is there a difference in authenticating a natted or
> non-nated UA using
> > www_authen? The reason i'm asking is because when my UA is directly
> > connected to the internet it authenticates fine but when
> NATed I get
> > the following error:
> >
> > parse_headers: flags=4096
> > 0(12877) pre_auth(): Credentials with given realm not found
> > 0(12877) ---:: didn't authorize
> > 0(12877) build_auth_hf(): 'WWW-Authenticate: Digest
> > realm="ser.edpnet.net",
> nonce="40f7be4edbd22e214821f2a3937968fc049ae290" '
> > 0(12877) parse_headers: flags=-1
>
>
> This is normal if it happens only for the first request. Your
> UA sends the first request without auth. info., the server
> sends back a negative reply with and auth. header and then
> your UA is supposed to retry to send the request with proper auth.
>
> In the future please include network dumps.
>
> Andrei
>
I had a look at your ngrep output. What confused me is this part -
"U 213.219.137.148:5060 -> 212.71.0.90:5060
REGISTER sip:ser.edpnet.net:5060 SIP/2.0..Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
213.219.137.148:50198..Supported: replaces..User-Agent: SIP201"
Note that 213.219.137.148:50198 - what does that port number 50198 signify (although the first line says its going from 5060 to 5060)? Can you show the ngrep when you use port 5070?
Dhiraj
-----Original Message-----
From: serusers-bounces(a)iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org]On
Behalf Of Bart Van Daal
Sent: 19 July 2004 14:36
To: serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
Subject: RE: [Serusers] NAT vs. NoNat authentication
No,
it's a standard ADSL router. I've reset the router to it's default
settings so it only does NAT, without DMZ, without any port being
forwarded.
I've tried again with port 5060 -> same problem
Tried with port 5070 -> everything works fine..
just out of curiousity, is there a logical explanation for this?
thanks,
Bart
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dhiraj.2.bhuyan(a)bt.com [mailto:dhiraj.2.bhuyan@bt.com]
> Sent: maandag 19 juli 2004 14:13
> To: B.Vandaal(a)edpnet.net; serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
> Subject: RE: Re[4]: [Serusers] NAT vs. NoNat authentication
>
> Does your NAT gateway have some inbuilt SIP feature? For
> example - a SIP ALG on it? If yes, try disabling it.
>
> Also check if you have set any port forwarding rule on your
> NAT gateway for port 5060.
>
> Dhiraj
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: serusers-bounces(a)iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org]On
> Behalf Of Bart Van Daal
> Sent: 19 July 2004 13:05
> To: serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
> Subject: RE: Re[4]: [Serusers] NAT vs. NoNat authentication
>
>
> Great!!
>
> this actually worked. I've changed the port from 5060 to 5070
> and now authorization runs fine. Could anyone give a logical
> explanation for this?
>
> thanks again Mike,
> Bart
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mike Tkachuk [mailto:mike@yes.net.ua]
> > Sent: maandag 19 juli 2004 13:48
> > To: Bart Van Daal
> > Subject: Re[4]: [Serusers] NAT vs. NoNat authentication
> >
> >
> >
> > Hello Bart,
> >
> > Monday, July 19, 2004, 2:27:21 PM, you wrote:
> >
> >
> > BVD> Hi Mike,
> >
> > BVD> thanks for the answer and the tip..
> > BVD> I can see the sipserver sending multiple '401' to the
> > router, so I
> > BVD> guess the router just drops these packets because it
> > doesn't know
> > BVD> what to do with them? I now have put the UA in dmz but
> > that still
> > BVD> doesn't solve the problem. I'll look further.
> >
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: Mike Tkachuk [mailto:mike@yes.net.ua]
> > >> Sent: maandag 19 juli 2004 11:56
> > >> To: Bart Van Daal
> > >> Subject: Re[2]: [Serusers] NAT vs. NoNat authentication
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Hello Bart,
> > >>
> > >> Looks like UA not receiving 401 unauthorized message from
> > SER, that's
> > >> why it not resend REGISTER message with calculated digest.
> > >> Maybe you have some troubles with NAT on 213.219.137.148?
> > >>
> > >> Hint: use ngrep with -W byline option (eg: ngrep -W byline
> > port 5060
> > >> )
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Best regards,
> > >>
> > >> ~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,.
> > >> Mike Tkachuk, ph:380-3433-47067
> > >> YES ISP, fx:380-3433-47067
> > >> Valova 17, mike|a|yes.net.ua
> > >> Kolomyia, www.yes.net.ua
> > >> Ukraine 78200 FWD: 66518
> > >>
> > >> 19.07.2004
> > >> ICQ# 57698805
> > >> MSN: mike_tkachuk|a|hotmail.com
> > >> ~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,.
> > >>
> >
> > One thing... some routers think that they are very smart
> :), so try to
> > change port on SER from 5060 to some other ( like:
> > port=5070 ) most of routers can be fooled with it.
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> >
> > ~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,.
> > Mike Tkachuk, ph:380-3433-47067
> > YES ISP, fx:380-3433-47067
> > Valova 17, mike|a|yes.net.ua
> > Kolomyia, www.yes.net.ua
> > Ukraine 78200 FWD: 66518
> >
> > 19.07.2004
> > ICQ# 57698805
> > MSN: mike_tkachuk|a|hotmail.com
> > ~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,.
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
No,
it's a standard ADSL router. I've reset the router to it's default
settings so it only does NAT, without DMZ, without any port being
forwarded.
I've tried again with port 5060 -> same problem
Tried with port 5070 -> everything works fine..
just out of curiousity, is there a logical explanation for this?
thanks,
Bart
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dhiraj.2.bhuyan(a)bt.com [mailto:dhiraj.2.bhuyan@bt.com]
> Sent: maandag 19 juli 2004 14:13
> To: B.Vandaal(a)edpnet.net; serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
> Subject: RE: Re[4]: [Serusers] NAT vs. NoNat authentication
>
> Does your NAT gateway have some inbuilt SIP feature? For
> example - a SIP ALG on it? If yes, try disabling it.
>
> Also check if you have set any port forwarding rule on your
> NAT gateway for port 5060.
>
> Dhiraj
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: serusers-bounces(a)iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org]On
> Behalf Of Bart Van Daal
> Sent: 19 July 2004 13:05
> To: serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
> Subject: RE: Re[4]: [Serusers] NAT vs. NoNat authentication
>
>
> Great!!
>
> this actually worked. I've changed the port from 5060 to 5070
> and now authorization runs fine. Could anyone give a logical
> explanation for this?
>
> thanks again Mike,
> Bart
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mike Tkachuk [mailto:mike@yes.net.ua]
> > Sent: maandag 19 juli 2004 13:48
> > To: Bart Van Daal
> > Subject: Re[4]: [Serusers] NAT vs. NoNat authentication
> >
> >
> >
> > Hello Bart,
> >
> > Monday, July 19, 2004, 2:27:21 PM, you wrote:
> >
> >
> > BVD> Hi Mike,
> >
> > BVD> thanks for the answer and the tip..
> > BVD> I can see the sipserver sending multiple '401' to the
> > router, so I
> > BVD> guess the router just drops these packets because it
> > doesn't know
> > BVD> what to do with them? I now have put the UA in dmz but
> > that still
> > BVD> doesn't solve the problem. I'll look further.
> >
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: Mike Tkachuk [mailto:mike@yes.net.ua]
> > >> Sent: maandag 19 juli 2004 11:56
> > >> To: Bart Van Daal
> > >> Subject: Re[2]: [Serusers] NAT vs. NoNat authentication
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Hello Bart,
> > >>
> > >> Looks like UA not receiving 401 unauthorized message from
> > SER, that's
> > >> why it not resend REGISTER message with calculated digest.
> > >> Maybe you have some troubles with NAT on 213.219.137.148?
> > >>
> > >> Hint: use ngrep with -W byline option (eg: ngrep -W byline
> > port 5060
> > >> )
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Best regards,
> > >>
> > >> ~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,.
> > >> Mike Tkachuk, ph:380-3433-47067
> > >> YES ISP, fx:380-3433-47067
> > >> Valova 17, mike|a|yes.net.ua
> > >> Kolomyia, www.yes.net.ua
> > >> Ukraine 78200 FWD: 66518
> > >>
> > >> 19.07.2004
> > >> ICQ# 57698805
> > >> MSN: mike_tkachuk|a|hotmail.com
> > >> ~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,.
> > >>
> >
> > One thing... some routers think that they are very smart
> :), so try to
> > change port on SER from 5060 to some other ( like:
> > port=5070 ) most of routers can be fooled with it.
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> >
> > ~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,.
> > Mike Tkachuk, ph:380-3433-47067
> > YES ISP, fx:380-3433-47067
> > Valova 17, mike|a|yes.net.ua
> > Kolomyia, www.yes.net.ua
> > Ukraine 78200 FWD: 66518
> >
> > 19.07.2004
> > ICQ# 57698805
> > MSN: mike_tkachuk|a|hotmail.com
> > ~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,.
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Serusers mailing list
> serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
> http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
>
Does your NAT gateway have some inbuilt SIP feature? For example - a SIP ALG on it? If yes, try disabling it.
Also check if you have set any port forwarding rule on your NAT gateway for port 5060.
Dhiraj
-----Original Message-----
From: serusers-bounces(a)iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org]On
Behalf Of Bart Van Daal
Sent: 19 July 2004 13:05
To: serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
Subject: RE: Re[4]: [Serusers] NAT vs. NoNat authentication
Great!!
this actually worked. I've changed the port from 5060 to 5070 and now
authorization runs fine. Could anyone give a logical explanation for this?
thanks again Mike,
Bart
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Tkachuk [mailto:mike@yes.net.ua]
> Sent: maandag 19 juli 2004 13:48
> To: Bart Van Daal
> Subject: Re[4]: [Serusers] NAT vs. NoNat authentication
>
>
>
> Hello Bart,
>
> Monday, July 19, 2004, 2:27:21 PM, you wrote:
>
>
> BVD> Hi Mike,
>
> BVD> thanks for the answer and the tip..
> BVD> I can see the sipserver sending multiple '401' to the
> router, so I
> BVD> guess the router just drops these packets because it
> doesn't know
> BVD> what to do with them? I now have put the UA in dmz but
> that still
> BVD> doesn't solve the problem. I'll look further.
>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Mike Tkachuk [mailto:mike@yes.net.ua]
> >> Sent: maandag 19 juli 2004 11:56
> >> To: Bart Van Daal
> >> Subject: Re[2]: [Serusers] NAT vs. NoNat authentication
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Hello Bart,
> >>
> >> Looks like UA not receiving 401 unauthorized message from
> SER, that's
> >> why it not resend REGISTER message with calculated digest.
> >> Maybe you have some troubles with NAT on 213.219.137.148?
> >>
> >> Hint: use ngrep with -W byline option (eg: ngrep -W byline
> port 5060
> >> )
> >>
> >> --
> >> Best regards,
> >>
> >> ~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,.
> >> Mike Tkachuk, ph:380-3433-47067
> >> YES ISP, fx:380-3433-47067
> >> Valova 17, mike|a|yes.net.ua
> >> Kolomyia, www.yes.net.ua
> >> Ukraine 78200 FWD: 66518
> >>
> >> 19.07.2004
> >> ICQ# 57698805
> >> MSN: mike_tkachuk|a|hotmail.com
> >> ~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,.
> >>
>
> One thing... some routers think that they are very smart :),
> so try to change port on SER from 5060 to some other ( like:
> port=5070 ) most of routers can be fooled with it.
>
> --
> Best regards,
>
> ~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,.
> Mike Tkachuk, ph:380-3433-47067
> YES ISP, fx:380-3433-47067
> Valova 17, mike|a|yes.net.ua
> Kolomyia, www.yes.net.ua
> Ukraine 78200 FWD: 66518
>
> 19.07.2004
> ICQ# 57698805
> MSN: mike_tkachuk|a|hotmail.com
> ~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,.
>
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
Hello:
I have been trying to get the CC-Diversion header working so
our proxy can interface with our existing Octel voice mail system.
Due to a series of incompatibilities between Cisco and Verizon's
DMS100 I have been forced to give up.
I'd like to revisit SEMS as an alternative. I have SER and SEMS
both installed and running but I am at a loss for how to forward
an unanswered call to SEMS after N rings. Can some please
explain this? My first attempt to use the existing failure route block
generated several of the following messages.
Jul 7 12:58:28 ser: parse error (642,19-20): Command cannot be used in
the block
Thanks,Steve
