sr-users August 2005

sr-users@lists.kamailio.org

220 participants
558 discussions

by harry gaillac

hello Maxim , I'm waiting your reply Harry --- Maxim Sobolev <sobomax(a)portaone.com> a écrit : > Yes, it will. I have this functionality in my > private repo, bit > unfortunately due to lack of free time I have not > merged support for > this feature into the public version of nathelper > yet. We have some > heavy changes that aren't applicable for the public > version, which has > to be filtered out. > > I am planning to do it sooner or later, maybe if you > are really > interested and can allocate some small amount of > money to this project I > can subcontract some of my friends/colleagues to do > it for me. > > -Maxim > > harry gaillac wrote: > > Hello, > > > > Does nathelper module + rtpproxy will be able to > ac as > > a 3cpp to provide MOH > > > > caller--------ser---------callee > > nathelper > > rtpproxy > > Regards > > Harry > > Remarque : message transféré en pièce jointe. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ___________________________________________________________________________ > > Appel audio GRATUIT partout dans le monde avec le > nouveau Yahoo! Messenger > > Téléchargez cette version sur > http://fr.messenger.yahoo.com > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > Subject: > > Re: [Serusers] hardphones MOH > > From: > > harry gaillac <gaillacharry(a)yahoo.fr> > > Date: > > Thu, 30 Jun 2005 23:01:32 +0200 (CEST) > > To: > > Nils Ohlmeier <lists(a)ohlmeier.org> > > > > To: > > Nils Ohlmeier <lists(a)ohlmeier.org> > > CC: > > serusers(a)lists.iptel.org > > > > > > What do you advise me ? > > > > I wish to use SER+Sems(ivr) to provide MOH. > > I've got two polycom ip300 however we just can > place > > on hold caller without music ! > > > > What can I do? what's the way? > > Does Ser or sems must act as 3cpp ? > > > > Regards > > Harry > > --- Nils Ohlmeier <lists(a)ohlmeier.org> a écrit : > > > > > >>snom UA's do, except that they spare the empty > offer > >>to the MOH server, but > >>send directly the SDP of the holdee to the MOH > >>server and expecting that the > >>server supports the chosen codec. > >>Beware that this 3pcc MOH alternative completely > >>breaks if there is any NAT > >>involved. > >> > >> Nils > >> > >>On Thursday 30 June 2005 22:29, harry gaillac > wrote: > >> > >>>hello, > >>> > >>>Anybody would be informed about ip phones able to > >>>provide moh according to > >>>http://www.tech-invite.com/Ti-sip-service-3.html > >>> > >>>regards > >>>harry > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > > ___________________________________________________________________________ > > > >>>Appel audio GRATUIT partout dans le monde avec le > >> > >>nouveau Yahoo! Messenger > >> > >>>Téléchargez cette version sur > >> > >>http://fr.messenger.yahoo.com > >> > >>>_______________________________________________ > >>>Serusers mailing list > >>>serusers(a)lists.iptel.org > >>>http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ___________________________________________________________________________ > > > Appel audio GRATUIT partout dans le monde avec le > nouveau Yahoo! Messenger > > Téléchargez cette version sur > http://fr.messenger.yahoo.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Serusers mailing list > > serusers(a)lists.iptel.org > > http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers > > ___________________________________________________________________________ Appel audio GRATUIT partout dans le monde avec le nouveau Yahoo! Messenger Téléchargez cette version sur http://fr.messenger.yahoo.com

19 years, 6 months

[Serusers] Issue with call forwarding

by Dave

Hello,I have implemented CFNR (Call forward on No Response) and CFU(Call forwardinf unconditional) using avp and I am running into the following problem: When CFU or CFNR are detected, the control is passed to route[2] (see below). CFU works fine and the call is forwarded to it's new destination. But CFNR does not work and the UA making the call gets a "Proxy Authentication Required" message from SER. Upon receiving this message, my UA gives me a congestion tone. This is strange since CFU works fine but in the case of CFNR, I see using ngrep that SER makes DNS queries to resolve my SIP domain (dns=no has been configured) The code is: route[2] { if (is_uri_host_local()) { if (!lookup("location")) { if (does_uri_exist()) { sl_send_reply("480", "Temporarily Unavailable"); break; } else { sl_send_reply("404", "User Not Found"); break; } ; } else { route(1); <-- this simply does t_relay() break; }; } else { sl_send_reply("302", "Temporarily Redirected"); break; }; } CFNR code is: ------------------------------------------- failure_route[1] { if (isflagset(22) && t_check_status("408")) { if (avp_pushto("$ruri", "s:cfnr")) { append_branch(); avp_delete("s:cfnr"); resetflag(22); route(2); break; }; }; } -------------------------------------------- Any pointers will be highly appreciated. Thanks ____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

19 years, 6 months

[Serusers] Config Errors

by zkeatts

I am getting the following config file error when I try to run the xml-rpc branch version of SER on a Red Hat 3.4.3-9 box. 0(20635) parse error (99,14-15): unknown command, missing loadmodule? 0(20635) parse error (100,16-17): unknown command, missing loadmodule? Can anyone indicate to me what might be the problem? The following are the steps I took to compile the package. 1) Compile and Install xmlrpc-c libraries. 2) $ make proper include_modules="mysql" $ make $ make modules include_modules="mysql" $ make install include_modules="mysql" 3) $ /usr/local/sbin/ser the ser.cfg file I am using is the quickstart ser.cfg Can anyone give me some insight into these errors? Thanks. Zach Keatts Software Engineer Nuvio.com

19 years, 6 months

[Serusers] serweb

by marc doucen

19 years, 6 months

[Serusers] adding groups

by harry gaillac

Hello, I want to add groups however for users however if i want to add new group not voicemail ld or local i receive: "Invalid privilege: mailbox ignored" So I have to add my group by hand in table grp. How can i solve this problem? Harry serveur1:~/asterisk# serctl acl grant bob mailbox MySql password: Invalid privilege: mailbox ignored +----------+------------+-----------+---------------------+ | username | domain | grp | last_modified | +----------+------------+-----------+---------------------+ | bob | nxs.yi.org | cellphone | 2005-08-08 14:11:00 | | bob | nxs.yi.org | local | 2005-08-08 14:14:52 | | bob | nxs.yi.org | voicemail | 2005-08-08 14:16:54 | +----------+------------+-----------+---------------------+ ___________________________________________________________________________ Appel audio GRATUIT partout dans le monde avec le nouveau Yahoo! Messenger Téléchargez cette version sur http://fr.messenger.yahoo.com

19 years, 6 months

[Serusers] ser radius accounting

by Dimitar Mojsovski

Hi all, I'm using ser and freeradius, and so far i have managed to set up the authentication, but I'm still having problems with the radius accounting. I've disabled sql and enabled radius acc module Makefile and compiled it. It loads with no problems, here's how i do it in my config : loadmodule "//lib/ser/modules/acc.so" modparam("acc", "log_level", 2) modparam("acc", "log_flag", 1) modparam("acc", "radius_config","/etc/radiusclient-ng/radiusclient.conf") modparam("acc", "service_type", 15) modparam("acc", "radius_flag", 1) modparam("acc", "radius_missed_flag", 3) and then I have : if (uri==myself) { if (method=="INVITE") { # mark the INVITEs for accounting setflag(1); # enforce record-routing so the BYEs will come through this server record_route(); }; if (method=="REGISTER") { # Uncomment this if you want to use digest authentication if (!radius_www_authorize("")) { log(1, "REGISTER: challenging user\n"); www_challenge("", "0"); break; }; setflag(1); 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; }; }; Ser starts and runs with no errors, however when my sip users make calls I see no acc log in radacct table on the radius server. Am I looking at the right place or am I doing something wrong? -- Dimitar Mojsovski Macedonia On-Line Service Provider www.mol.com.mk

19 years, 6 months

[Users] avpops tutorial updated

by Daniel-Constantin Mierla

Hello, the AVPOPS tutorial has been updated to the latest development version: http://www.voice-system.ro/docs/avpops/ Among presentations of the new methods (avp_op(), avp_subst(), avp_printf() ...), it includes a new example of how the newest AVPOPS capabilities allow to store and use bitmap ACL per user. The old version, valid for 0.9.x, is now located at: http://www.voice-system.ro/docs/avpops/0.9.0/ Daniel

19 years, 6 months

[Serusers] radius auth, can't login with a linksys pap2-na

by Simone Cittadini

I can't have the lines of a linksys pap authenticate on ser, but only if the backend is radius, seems it doesn't like the uri: <sip:172.18.1.12> part of the SIP request, with Xlite that part reads uri: <sip:2klab.net> and radius authenticates ok. with a mysql backend for auth both uri authenticates well, so I think I'm missing something in radius configuration. (I've followed the RADIUS_howto on iptel.org) from ser.cfg : if (uri==myself) { if (method=="REGISTER") { if (!radius_www_authorize("2klab.net")) { www_challenge("2klab.net", "0"); break; }; save("location"); break; }; lookup("aliases"); # native SIP destinations are handled using our USRLOC DB if (!lookup("location")) { sl_send_reply("404", "Not Found"); break; }; }; This is the log for a succesful register with mysql auth backend : 6(1885) SIP Request: 6(1885) method: <REGISTER> 6(1885) uri: <sip:172.18.1.12> 6(1885) version: <SIP/2.0> 6(1885) parse_headers: flags=1 6(1885) Found param type 232, <branch> = <z9hG4bK-1741b415>; state=16 6(1885) end of header reached, state=5 6(1885) parse_headers: Via found, flags=1 6(1885) parse_headers: this is the first via 6(1885) After parse_msg... 6(1885) preparing to run routing scripts... 6(1885) parse_headers: flags=128 6(1885) end of header reached, state=9 6(1885) DEBUG: get_hdr_field: <To> [29]; uri=[sip:2002@172.18.1.12] 6(1885) DEBUG: to body [2002 <sip:2002@172.18.1.12> 6(1885) get_hdr_field: cseq <CSeq>: <2> <REGISTER> 6(1885) DEBUG:maxfwd:is_maxfwd_present: value = 70 6(1885) DBG:maxfwd:process_maxfwd_header: value 70 decreased to 16 6(1885) grep_sock_info - checking if host==us: 11==11 && [172.18.1.12] == [172.18.1.12] 6(1885) grep_sock_info - checking if port 5060 matches port 5060 6(1885) parse_headers: flags=4096 6(1885) check_nonce(): comparing [42f6ef654b9c6efc04d7e468746d818f8e1633ab] and [42f6ef654b9c6efc04d7e468746d818f8e1633ab] 6(1885) HA1 string calculated: 9b7a9697157ad673ed341c1aca7c12c5 6(1885) check_response(): Our result = '1f77523c69a80ae921d5e05d8a5e0fcd' 6(1885) check_response(): Authorization is OK 6(1885) save_rpid(): rpid value is '' 6(1885) parse_headers: flags=-1 6(1885) DEBUG: get_hdr_body : content_length=0 6(1885) found end of header 6(1885) parse_headers: flags=33554432 6(1885) build_contact(): Created Contact HF: Contact: <sip:2002@172.18.1.13:5061>;expires=3600 6(1885) parse_headers: flags=-1 6(1885) check_via_address(172.18.1.13, 172.18.1.13, 0) 6(1885) DEBUG:destroy_avp_list: destroying list (nil) 6(1885) receive_msg: cleaning up And this one for an unsuccesful register from the same pap client, but radius backend : 9(2042) SIP Request: 9(2042) method: <REGISTER> 9(2042) uri: <sip:172.18.1.12> 9(2042) version: <SIP/2.0> 9(2042) parse_headers: flags=1 9(2042) Found param type 232, <branch> = <z9hG4bK-80868dab>; state=16 9(2042) end of header reached, state=5 9(2042) parse_headers: Via found, flags=1 9(2042) parse_headers: this is the first via 9(2042) After parse_msg... 9(2042) preparing to run routing scripts... 9(2042) parse_headers: flags=128 9(2042) end of header reached, state=9 9(2042) DEBUG: get_hdr_field: <To> [29]; uri=[sip:2002@172.18.1.12] 9(2042) DEBUG: to body [2002 <sip:2002@172.18.1.12> 9(2042) get_hdr_field: cseq <CSeq>: <3> <REGISTER> 9(2042) DEBUG:maxfwd:is_maxfwd_present: value = 70 9(2042) DBG:maxfwd:process_maxfwd_header: value 70 decreased to 16 9(2042) grep_sock_info - checking if host==us: 11==11 && [172.18.1.12] == [172.18.1.12] 9(2042) grep_sock_info - checking if port 5060 matches port 5060 9(2042) parse_headers: flags=4096 9(2042) check_nonce(): comparing [42f6f2f3e9dd51cad68be2927d5863727cd3798a] and [42f6f2f3e9dd51cad68be2927d5863727cd3798a] 9(2042) authorize(): Credentials realm and URI host do not match 9(2042) build_auth_hf(): 'WWW-Authenticate: Digest realm="2klab.net", nonce="42f6f2f3e9dd51cad68be2927d5863727cd3798a" 9(2042) parse_headers: flags=-1 9(2042) DEBUG: get_hdr_body : content_length=0 9(2042) found end of header 9(2042) check_via_address(172.18.1.13, 172.18.1.13, 0) 9(2042) DEBUG:destroy_avp_list: destroying list (nil) 9(2042) receive_msg: cleaning up seems Xlite sends my domain as uri, and radius likes it : 4(2034) SIP Request: 4(2034) method: <REGISTER> 4(2034) uri: <sip:2klab.net> 4(2034) version: <SIP/2.0> 4(2034) parse_headers: flags=1 4(2034) Found param type 235, <rport> = <n/a>; state=6 4(2034) Found param type 232, <branch> = <z9hG4bK461FD1B046D3D5FB1FE0012188DF1BB8>; state=16 4(2034) end of header reached, state=5 4(2034) parse_headers: Via found, flags=1 4(2034) parse_headers: this is the first via 4(2034) After parse_msg... 4(2034) preparing to run routing scripts... 4(2034) parse_headers: flags=128 4(2034) end of header reached, state=9 4(2034) DEBUG: get_hdr_field: <To> [29]; uri=[sip:user1@2klab.net] 4(2034) DEBUG: to body [user1 <sip:user1@2klab.net> 4(2034) get_hdr_field: cseq <CSeq>: <2352> <REGISTER> 4(2034) DEBUG:maxfwd:is_maxfwd_present: value = 70 4(2034) DBG:maxfwd:process_maxfwd_header: value 70 decreased to 16 4(2034) grep_sock_info - checking if host==us: 9==11 && [2klab.net] == [172.18.1.12] 4(2034) grep_sock_info - checking if port 5060 matches port 5060 4(2034) grep_sock_info - checking if host==us: 9==11 && [2klab.net] == [172.18.1.12] 4(2034) grep_sock_info - checking if port 5060 matches port 5060 4(2034) check_nonce(): comparing [42f6f204483c60785f0ffd667859ed55b34fad23] and [42f6f204483c60785f0ffd667859ed55b34fad23] 4(2034) radius_authorize_sterman(): Success 4(2034) save_rpid(): rpid value is '' 4(2034) parse_headers: flags=-1 4(2034) DEBUG: get_hdr_body : content_length=0 4(2034) found end of header 4(2034) parse_headers: flags=33554432 4(2034) build_contact(): Created Contact HF: Contact: <sip:user1@172.18.1.10:5060>;expires=1800 4(2034) parse_headers: flags=-1 4(2034) check_via_address(172.18.1.10, 172.18.1.10, 0) 4(2034) DEBUG:destroy_avp_list: destroying list (nil) 4(2034) receive_msg: cleaning up

19 years, 6 months

Re: [Serusers] Sending FQDN in VIA Header

by Samuel Osorio Calvo

I think Juha already answered you...I'll try to expand his answer, see inline Hope it helps, Samuel. Unclassified. >>> ranveer kunal <ranveerkunal(a)gmail.com> 08/08/05 08:07AM >>> Hi frnds, Is there a way to configure SER so that it sends the domainname in via header ? [SAM] I don't know....take a look at advertised_ip and advertised_port (check spelling because I'm not sure about it..) and they might do the trick. Why is SER not responding to OPTIONS sent to it, it throws an error "404 not found" ? [SAM] Probably you do not handle SIP OPTIONS message properly in your config file, and it is instead treated as an INVITE. You have to add something like if (method==OPTIONS){ options_reply(); break; } There are several parameters to configure what SER is sending back with options_reply(). Take a look at options module. modparam("options", "support", "100rel") modparam("options", "accept_language", "de") modparam("options", "accept_encoding", "gzip") modparam("options", "accept", "application/*") Regards, Ranveer. -- Memories : They bring Diamonds and Rust _______________________________________________ Serusers mailing list serusers(a)lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers

19 years, 6 months

[Serusers] acc_request

by Pavol Segeč

Hi all! I tried to set up missed call reporting through the Admin guide v0.11.0, but for action acc_request ser -c reports parse error. Is the action part of the the acc.so module anymore? palo

19 years, 6 months

← Newer
1
...
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
...
56
Older →

Jump to page:

2025

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 August 2005