Hi all,
I'm testing a new UA and I've got a Contact Header Field format in
REGISTER msg I'm not aware of:
REGISTER sip:/sip.mydomain.com/:5060 SIP/2.0.
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP *0.0.0.0:0;*branch=z9hG4bK2497750963.
From: <sip:/pstn_number/@/sip.mydomain.com/>;tag=3670695360.
To: <sip:/pstn_number/@/sip.mydomain.com/>.
Call-ID: 2377110845(a)192.168.1.4.
CSeq: 1 REGISTER.
Contact: <sip:/pstn_number/*@0.0.0.0:0;**stun=4*>.
max-forwards: 70.
expires: 3600.
user-agent: oSIP/Linphone-1.1.0-IMVP.
Allow: INVITE, ACK, CANCEL, OPTIONS, BYE, REFER, NOTIFY, INFO.
Content-Length: 0.
i.e. ip:port is no longer in Contact or Via Header Fields and a stun=4
parameter is specified in Contact HF
Have you got any clue on RFC reference for this behaviour?
How can I handle this on SER?
(SER fills location table as follows:
username: /pstn_number/
domain: /sip.mydomain.com/
contact: sip:/pstn_number/@0.0.0.0:0;stun=4
received: sip:/UA_ip_address/:5060
)
THX,
Mety
Hello,
I was reading the SER DG when I came upon a sentence (twice on the same
page) saying that there is a chapter dealing with, and I quote, SIP Message
Modifications. However, the said chapter does not exist in the 0.8.8 version
of the document. Can someone shed some light on the subject? :-) Cause I
really need to understand the workings of that part of the server.
Thanks in advance
Ahmed
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
Hi,
I want to use radiusclient-ng library with my SER. Previously, I was
using radiusclient. Now that I have installed from source radiusclient-ng on
the machine and also configured SER to sue, it still seems to be using old
radiusclient, and not radiusclient-ng, because when I delete the modules
libradius.so.* from my machine, then I get the error by SER
"libradiusclient.so.2: cannot open shared object file: No such file or
directory", which surely indicates that SER is configure to use only
radiusclient at compile time .
Is there any switch/ directive while compile time to indicate that SER
should use radiusclient-ng , and not radiusclient?
Regards,
Ashutosh Kumar
Chetu, Inc.
Ph : 1(305) 402 6724 - Witin US
Ph : 91 120 5323340 - Outside US
Fax:1 (305) 832 5987
For more information, please visit http://www.chetu.com
Hi,
If there are multiple branches, will
avp_write("$ruri/username","i:123") generate multiple avps with each
for one branch? Or it only grabs the first one?
Thanks,
Richard
Hello,
I am trying to add a function to SER, in order to only alter the host part
of the Contact URI.
To do that, I'm trying to draw inspiration from the existing
fix_nated_contact_f function written in nathelper.c
Problem is there are various points I just don't seem to understand.
If anyone can help me answer these questions, I would sure appreciate it!!
1- the parameters declared for the fix_nated_contact_f function are (struct
sip_msg* msg, char* str1, char* str2)
But the code itself only exploits the first parameter, if I am not mistaken.
If that is the case, what are the others here for?
2- the lines:
if (uri.port.len==0)
uri.port.s = uri.host.s + uri.host.len;
What I understand from this is the following: If there isn't a port
specified in the original message (the port pointer is not pointing to
anything), set the pointer's value (the pointer in the port part of the URI
structure) to point to the memory location right after where the host part
in the URI ends.
Is that correct? And, if so, is that done in order to prepare for an
eventual insertion of a port when going through the NAT?
3- the line:
offset = c->uri.s - msg->buf;
I won't even venture a guess here. A total mystery to me.
4- the line:
len = c->uri.len + strlen(cp) + 6 /* :port */ - (uri.port.s +
uri.port.len - uri.host.s) + 1;
What I gather here is that we're computing the relative difference in size
(length) between the already existing ip:port field in the message, and the
one we're about to replace it with (source address of the packet), is that
right?
5- the part:
temp[0] = uri.host.s[0];
temp[1] = c->uri.s[c->uri.len];
Euh!! Is he taking just the first and last characters from the URI host
string, putting them in a "safe place" (to be later restored) and putting
'\0' characters instead to "delimit" something or other? Or am I totally off
mark???
6- the line:
len1 = snprintf(buf, len, "%s%s:%d%s", c->uri.s, cp,
msg->rcv.src_port,uri.port.s + uri.port.len);
Here, len1 will hold the size of the memory size (buffer) needed to insert
the new data, right?
7- the condition:
if (len1 < len)
len = len1;
You'll have to enlighten me on that one, cause I don't see it...
I'm sorry to bother you with such a long mail, but I need the help!
And if someone has a better approach to my original problem(cf. first line
of the mail) please do not hesitate :-)
Thank you in advance
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
Hello all,
is it possible to send a REGISTER with username and password to an external SIP-Server right after starting up of ser?
I thought at uac-Module or tm-Module, any other suggestions?
Thanks
Thorsten
I have ser running on svr1. Would it be possible to run serweb from another server, say, svr2 ?
What do I need to achieve this ? TIA.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Hi All,
lookup(): '@192.168.1.66' Not found in usrloc
my SIP_DOMAIN was sharephone.networks.com and my IP Address is 192.168.1.66 and i added the FQDN in the /etc/hosts file and when i use the UA to register it registers but after a while i get the folloing message in the log.
Thanks,
Sunil.
2(14038) grep_sock_info - checking if host==us: 12==12 && [192.168.1.66] == [192.168.1.66]
2(14038) grep_sock_info - checking if port 5060 matches port 5060
2(14038) grep_sock_info - checking if host==us: 12==12 && [192.168.1.66] == [192.168.1.66]
2(14038) grep_sock_info - checking if port 5060 matches port 5060
2(14038) lookup(): '@192.168.1.66' Not found in usrloc
2(14038) grep_sock_info - checking if host==us: 12==12 && [192.168.1.66] == [192.168.1.66]
2(14038) grep_sock_info - checking if port 5060 matches port 5060
2(14038) lookup(): '@192.168.1.66' Not found in usrloc
2(14038) parse_headers: flags=ffffffffffffffff
2(14038) check_via_address(192.168.1.65, 192.168.1.65, 0)
2(14038) DEBUG:destroy_avp_list: destroying list (nil)
2(14038) receive_msg: cleaning up
2(14038) SIP Request:
2(14038) method: <OPTIONS>
2(14038) uri: <sip:192.168.1.66:5060>
2(14038) version: <SIP/2.0>
2(14038) parse_headers: flags=2
2(14038) Found param type 235, <rport> = <n/a>; state=6
2(14038) Found param type 232, <branch> = <z9hG4bKc0a801410000000b430a4e92000005dd000005ec>; state=16
2(14038) end of header reached, state=5
2(14038) parse_headers: Via found, flags=2
2(14038) parse_headers: this is the first via
2(14038) After parse_msg...
2(14038) preparing to run routing scripts...
2(14038) parse_headers: flags=100
2(14038) DEBUG: get_hdr_body : content_length=0
2(14038) get_hdr_field: cseq <CSeq>: <456> <OPTIONS>
2(14038) DEBUG:maxfwd:is_maxfwd_present: value = 70
2(14038) DBG:maxfwd:process_maxfwd_header: value 70 decreased to 16
2(14038) DEBUG: add_param: tag=286578432823134
2(14038) end of header reached, state=29
2(14038) parse_headers: flags=200
2(14038) end of header reached, state=9
2(14038) DEBUG: get_hdr_field: <To> [25]; uri=[sip:192.168.1.66:5060]
2(14038) DEBUG: to body [<sip:192.168.1.66:5060>
]
2(14038) found end of header
2(14038) find_first_route: No Route headers found
2(14038) loose_route: There is no Route HF
2(14038) grep_sock_info - checking if host==us: 12==12 && [192.168.1.66] == [192.168.1.66]
2(14038) grep_sock_info - checking if port 5060 matches port 5060
2(14038) grep_sock_info - checking if host==us: 12==12 && [192.168.1.66] == [192.168.1.66]
2(14038) grep_sock_info - checking if port 5060 matches port 5060
2(14038) lookup(): '@192.168.1.66' Not found in usrloc
2(14038) grep_sock_info - checking if host==us: 12==12 && [192.168.1.66] == [192.168.1.66]
2(14038) grep_sock_info - checking if port 5060 matches port 5060
2(14038) lookup(): '@192.168.1.66' Not found in usrloc
2(14038) parse_headers: flags=ffffffffffffffff
2(14038) check_via_address(192.168.1.65, 192.168.1.65, 0)
2(14038) DEBUG:destroy_avp_list: destroying list (nil)
2(14038) receive_msg: cleaning up
---------------------------------
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
---------------------------------
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
> Looking at this issue, I am wondering if worth to add the
> pseudovariables $dh and $dp for destination host and port ... Also I
> am considering to change a bit the $du reference so when the dst_uri
> is not set to point to request URI. Would be these changes usefully?
Hi Daniel!
This reveals another question: What is the difference between: request
URI, first branch, all branches, destionation sets .....
I used xlog to log all this pseude variables just before t_relay.
first branch: $br=sip:klaus@10.10.0.50:8718
all branches: $bR=sip:klaus@10.10.0.50:8718
destination set: $ds=Contact: sip:klaus@83.136.33.19:5060,
sip:klaus@10.10.0.50:8718
destination uri: $du=<null>
request uri: $ru=sip:klaus@83.136.33.19:5060
In the above call scenario, there is just lookup() which reveals 2
contacts, one with public IP and one with NATed IP (received structure
used).
Can you please describe the difference of these variables?
- Why does the destination set contains the NATed IP instead of the
received-IP?
- Why does all branches only shows the first one?
- Why is the request URI different to the first branch?
regards
klaus
Hi,
I tried to uncomment the ser.cfg file as the instruction to use mysql. but i met some problem. the sys log file shows:
Aug 22 19:13:52 pc5 ser: ERROR: load_module: could not open module </usr/lib/ser/modules/mysql.so>: /usr/lib/ser/modules/mysql.so: cannot open shared object$
Aug 22 19:13:52 pc5 ser: parse error (28,13-14): failed to load module
Aug 22 19:13:52 pc5 ser: set_mod_param_regex: No module matching auth_db found |
Aug 22 19:13:52 pc5 ser: parse error (56,21-22): Can't set module parameter
Aug 22 19:13:52 pc5 ser: set_mod_param_regex: No module matching auth_db found |
Aug 22 19:13:52 pc5 ser: parse error (61,20-21): Can't set module parameter
could anyone can help?
============================
You won't admit you love me, and so How am I ever to know You always tell me...
Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps
--
_______________________________________________
Search for businesses by name, location, or phone number. -Lycos Yellow Pages
http://r.lycos.com/r/yp_emailfooter/http://yellowpages.lycos.com/default.as…
