In my SER installation, I have RADIUS accounting enabled, but when I start
ser I get the following:
Maxfwd module- initializing
acc - initializing
0(27928) ERROR: acc: can't get code for the Sip-Method attribute
0(27928) init_mod(): Error while initializing module acc
ERROR: error while initializing modules
I found the advise from a ser user on removing the comments from the
dictionary.ser file, which I did but it did not help.
I downloaded the latest (supposedly) from
http://download.berlios.de/radiusclient-ng/radiusclient-0.4.3.tar.gz and
installed, that did not help either.
Now I am wondering if any one has solved such an issue?
Thanks
_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar get it now!
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
Hi guys,
I have problem with nathelper/rtpproxy
I use ser 0.8.14
in ser.cfg
loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/nathelper.so"
roote logic
if (method == "INVITE") {
if (uri =~ "sip:1[0-9]{10}@*") {
log(1, "Forwarding to Asterisk\n");
rewritehostportt("80.72.68.187:5070");
t_relay();
break;
}
};
I run ser in debug mode
ser -ddddddddd
and I got this message
27(1785) DEBUG: init_mod_child (-4): nathelper
27(1785) ERROR: send_rtpp_command: can't read reply from a RTP proxy
27(1785) WARNING: rtpp_test: can't get version of the RTP proxy
27(1785) WARNING: rtpp_test: support for RTP proxyhas been disabled temporarily
Reading some posts on the maillist I saw that other people had the same problem, so I updated rtpproxy
cvs -d :pserver:anonymous@cvs.ser.berlios.de:/cvsroot/ser co rtprproxy
and after that
./configure
make & make install
rtpproxy
Starting ser the same problem exists.
Somebody can help me?
Thanks in advance
Pavel
Hi all,
I am using last stable SER and Nathelper from CVS and last RTPPROXY from CVS
too.
UA1--------> SER & RTPPROXY <--------- NAT <-------------- UA2
10.0.1.10 10.0.1.135 10.0.1.118
192.168.1.2
1. When UA2 INVITE UA1 through SER , nathelper rewrite SDP. There is an error .
Connection Information (c) :IN IP4 10.0.1.13510.0.1.135
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
2. UA1 couldn't INVITE UA2
Can you tell me how to correct it.
Attached is my ser.cfg.
Thanks in advanced:
kaz
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#
# $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/local/lib/ser/modules/mysql.so"
loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/acc.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"
# Uncomment this if you want digest authentication
# mysql.so must be loaded !
loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/auth.so"
loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/auth_db.so"
# Nathelper
loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/nathelper.so"
# ----------------- setting module-specific parameters ---------------
modparam("acc", "log_level", 1)
modparam("acc", "log_flag", 1)
modparam("acc", "report_ack", 1)
modparam("acc", "db_flag", 1 )
# report to syslog: From, i-uri, status, digest id
modparam("acc", "log_fmt", "fisu" )
# -- 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)
#modparam("acc", "db_url", "sql://root:@localhost/ser")
modparam("registrar", "nat_flag", 6)
modparam("nathelper", "natping_interval", 30)
modparam("nathelper", "ping_nated_only", 1)
# ------------------------- 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;
};
# !! Nathelper
# Special handling for NATed clients; first, NAT test is
# executed: it looks for via!=received and RFC1918 addresses
# in Contact (may fail if line-folding is used); also,
# the received test should, if completed, should check all
# vias for rpesence of received
if (nat_uac_test("3")) {
# Allow RR-ed requests, as these may indicate that
# a NAT-enabled proxy takes care of it; unless it is
# a REGISTER
if (method == "REGISTER" || ! search("^Record-Route:")){
log("LOG: Someone trying to register from private IP, rewriting\n");
fix_nated_contact(); # Rewrite contact with source IP of signalling
if (method == "INVITE") {
fix_nated_sdp("1"); # Add direction=active to SDP
};
force_rport(); # Add rport parameter to topmost Via
setflag(6); # Mark as NATed
};
};
# we record-route all messages -- to make sure that
# subsequent messages will go through our proxy; that's
# particularly good if upstream and downstream entities
# use different transport protocol
record_route();
setflag(1);
# loose-route processing
if (loose_route()) {
append_hf("P-hint: rr-enforced\r\n");
route(1);
# t_relay();
break;
};
if (!uri==myself) {
# mark routing logic in request
append_hf("P-hint: outbound\r\n");
route(1);
break;
};
# if the request is for other domain use UsrLoc
# (in case, it does not work, use the following command
# with proper names and addresses in it)
if (uri==myself) {
if (method=="INVITE") {
# record_route();
if (isflagset(6)) {
force_rtp_proxy();
};
};
if (method=="REGISTER") {
# Uncomment this if you want to use digest authentication
if (!www_authorize("iptel.org", "subscriber")) {
www_challenge("iptel.org", "0");
break;
};
save("location");
break;
};
lookup("aliases");
if(!uri==myself){
append_hf("P-hint: outbound alias\r\n");
route(1);
break;
};
# native SIP destinations are handled using our USRLOC DB
if (!lookup("location")) {
sl_send_reply("404", "Not Found");
break;
};
};
# forward to current uri now; use stateful forwarding; that
# works reliably even if we forward from TCP to UDP
append_hf("P-hint: usrloc applied\r\n");
route(1);
}
route[1]
{
# if (uri=~"[@:](192\.168\.|10\.|172\.16)" && !search("^Route:")){
# sl_send_reply("479", "We don't forward to private IP addresses");
# break;
# };
if (isflagset(6)) {
force_rtp_proxy();
t_on_reply("1");
append_hf("P-Behind-NAT: Yes\r\n");
};
# send it out now; use stateful forwarding as it works reliably
# even for UDP2TCP
if (!t_relay()) {
sl_reply_error();
};
}
onreply_route[1] {
if (status =~ "(183)|2[0-9][0-9]") {
fix_nated_contact();
force_rtp_proxy();
};
}
onreply_route[2] {
# NATed transaction ?
if (isflagset(6) && status =~ "(183)|2[0-9][0-9]") {
fix_nated_contact();
force_rtp_proxy();
# otherwise, is it a transaction behind a NAT and we did not
# know at time of request processing ? (RFC1918 contacts)
} else if (nat_uac_test("1")) {
fix_nated_contact();
};
}
Hi,
Anyone experienced echo of own voice during sip connections? Is this a
setting in X-lite, or something I need to configure on the server?
It'spretty annoying...
DImitri
yes,
this case works if after t_replicate() break isn't placed and t_relay() is
called.
append_branch should have form of:
append_branch(sip:forwarded_proxy_address)
thank you,
Antanas
NTT
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004, Bogdan-Andrei IANCU wrote:
> try something like:
> append_branch( dst1 );
> append_branch( dst2 );
> t_replicate( dst3 );
> let me know if it works.
>
> bogdan
>
>
> Antanas Masevicius wrote:
>
> >hello,
> >
> >t_replicate() works only for a single destination. If i want to forward
> >REGISTER message to more then a single destination (using two
> >t_replicate() calls), then it only forwards REGISTER message to the first
> >one.
> >
> >Antanas
> >NTT
> >
> >
> >On Thu, 19 Aug 2004, Richard wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>t_replicate() function is for forward REGISTER message.
> >>
> >>Richard
> >>
> >>
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: serusers-bounces(a)iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org] On
> >>Behalf Of Antanas Masevicius
> >>Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2004 8:08 PM
> >>To: serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
> >>Subject: [Serusers] REGISTER msg fork
> >>
> >>Hello,
> >>
> >>i've been trying to fork the same REGISTER message to two separete SIP
> >>proxies with:
> >>
> >>if(message == "REGISTER" && uri=~"sip:my_first_proxy") {
> >> append_branch("sip:my_second_proxy");
> >>}
> >>
> >>also tried with:
> >>
> >>if(message == "REGISTER" && uri=~"sip:my_first_proxy") {
> >> seturi("sip:my_first_proxy");
> >> forward(uri:host, uri:port);
> >> seturi("sip:my_second_proxy");
> >> forward(uri:host, uri:port);
> >> break;
> >>}
> >>
> >>but neither case works. Registration request is forwarded only for the
> >>first proxy. It seams that seturi() and other uri rewriting functions
> >>doesn't affect REGISTER uri?
> >>
> >>What could we other solution for such situation?
> >>
> >>Antanas
> >>NTT
> >>
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>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
> >
> >
> >
>
hello,
t_replicate() works only for a single destination. If i want to forward
REGISTER message to more then a single destination (using two
t_replicate() calls), then it only forwards REGISTER message to the first
one.
Antanas
NTT
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004, Richard wrote:
> t_replicate() function is for forward REGISTER message.
>
> Richard
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: serusers-bounces(a)iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org] On
> Behalf Of Antanas Masevicius
> Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2004 8:08 PM
> To: serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
> Subject: [Serusers] REGISTER msg fork
>
> Hello,
>
> i've been trying to fork the same REGISTER message to two separete SIP
> proxies with:
>
> if(message == "REGISTER" && uri=~"sip:my_first_proxy") {
> append_branch("sip:my_second_proxy");
> }
>
> also tried with:
>
> if(message == "REGISTER" && uri=~"sip:my_first_proxy") {
> seturi("sip:my_first_proxy");
> forward(uri:host, uri:port);
> seturi("sip:my_second_proxy");
> forward(uri:host, uri:port);
> break;
> }
>
> but neither case works. Registration request is forwarded only for the
> first proxy. It seams that seturi() and other uri rewriting functions
> doesn't affect REGISTER uri?
>
> What could we other solution for such situation?
>
> Antanas
> NTT
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Serusers mailing list
> serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
> http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
>
hi everyone!
I have installed ser-0.8.10 and ser-mysql-0.8.10 on Red Hat Linux 7.2. After I made a little configuration on the script (even did not add anything). The SIP server can work
well in LAN .There are Two telephones both in the LAN can get though. When I put ser on
Internet, and put the two telephones on Internet with their own public IP addresses,
they can work well too.
Then I put one in a intranet with its private IP address, and the other on Internet with
its public IP address, they can get through too. with the telephone with public IP
ddress I can hear the other, But the other cann't.
What's wrong? I have no idea what I can do .
Anyone help me please !
Thank you!
gg
gg
gdut200104024532(a)163.com
2004-08-20
Hi
Has anyone ever tried to run SER on any embedded MIPS
machine? Is it compatible with the MIPS architecture?
And how do I compile SER for iPAQ (ARM)?
Shaharyar
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Hello,
i've been trying to fork the same REGISTER message to two separete SIP
proxies with:
if(message == "REGISTER" && uri=~"sip:my_first_proxy") {
append_branch("sip:my_second_proxy");
}
also tried with:
if(message == "REGISTER" && uri=~"sip:my_first_proxy") {
seturi("sip:my_first_proxy");
forward(uri:host, uri:port);
seturi("sip:my_second_proxy");
forward(uri:host, uri:port);
break;
}
but neither case works. Registration request is forwarded only for the
first proxy. It seams that seturi() and other uri rewriting functions
doesn't affect REGISTER uri?
What could we other solution for such situation?
Antanas
NTT
Hello,
i've been trying to fork the same REGISTER message to two separete SIP
proxies with:
if(message == "REGISTER" && uri=~"sip:my_first_proxy") {
append_branch("sip:my_second_proxy");
}
also tried with:
if(message == "REGISTER" && uri=~"sip:my_first_proxy") {
seturi("sip:my_first_proxy");
forward(uri:host, uri:port);
seturi("sip:my_second_proxy");
forward(uri:host, uri:port);
break;
}
but neither case works. Registration request is forwarded only for the
first proxy. It seams that seturi() and other uri rewriting functions
doesn't affect REGISTER uri?
What could we other solution for such situation?
Antanas
NTT
