sr-users August 2006

sr-users@lists.kamailio.org

184 participants
361 discussions

Re: [Serusers] Multihomed SER & NAT
by Sebastian Gabris 10 Aug '06

10 Aug '06

Thanks for the response, will try it and see what happens. :-) While waiting for help, i tried a new config, without fix_nat_contact. It works (Audio & signalling) for outgoing calls.(private -> public) Contact header has a private IP but SDP information is correct due to RTPProxy. At incoming calls the force_rtp_proxy command didn't change anything, meaning that SDP Information is not correct -> no audio, only signalling. I tried to start rtpproxy without options and in bridged mode. Also in bridged mode i tried both possibilities -l private/public & -l public/private, but it didn't influence the outcome. Perhaps someone could help me out on this. :-) Here are the changes to my config. route[1] { if(dst_ip == 10.x.x.x) { force_rtp_proxy("","193.x.x.x"); }; if (dst_ip == 193.x.x.x) { force_rtp_proxy("","10.x.x.x"); }; t_on_reply("1"); if (!t_relay()) { sl_reply_error(); }; } onreply_route[1] { if (status =~ "(183)|2[0-9][0-9]") { if(dst_ip == 10.x.x.x) { force_rtp_proxy("e"); log(2,"RTP_PROXY: Reply-Route1 dst 10.x.x.x\n"); }; if (dst_ip == 193.x.x.x) { force_rtp_proxy("i"); log(2,"RTP_PROXY: Reply-Route1 dst 193.x.x.x\n"); }; }; } fix_nated_contact() is meant for changing the IP address of the Contact > header when SER has a public address and the UA has a private (i.e. > behind NAT). This means that it will rewrite Contact to contain the > source ip address:port found in the UDP/TCP header. > This is probably correct, because I assume the UA cannot be reached > from the outside anyway. If you record-route, subsequent requests > should go through your ser. > > If you have problems with responses not being returned, have a look at > Via headers as they control how answers to i.e an INVITE are routed > back to the UA. You may want to have a look at the rr module double > record route parameter to make sure that SER creates one record-route > for the internal and one for the external interface. > g-) > > Sebastian Gabris wrote: > After reading a bit more mails, I came to two possible problems: > 1. fix_nated_contact() needs a registrar to work properly > I dont use a registrar, since i register at the VoIP - Provider. > or > 2. fix_nated_contact() is not ment to be used on this scenario > Any ideas on this? > Sebastian > > > Hi everybody, > need some help on nattraversal. > i use a multihomed SER, one private IP & one public IP. > MyUA(privateIP) <-> (privateIP)SER(publicIP) <-> UA-(VoIP - Provider, pubicIP) > If i try to make a call from private net to public net, SER doesnt change the contact address. He changes the sdp - connection field but he, puts in the wrong IP - address. > Instead o writing down his public IP, SER writes his private IP. > Then SER forwards the call on his public interface to the provider, which will get wrong Contact & SDP information. > After reviewing my logs i saw that SER does the nat_uac_test, but the fix_nat_contact & fix_sdp dont work dont do what they should do :) > Here are the important bits of my config: > fork=yes > log_stderror=no mhomed=1 > listen=10.x.x.x > listen=193.x.x.x > loadmodule "/usr/lib/ser/modules/nathelper.so" > modparam("usrloc", "db_mode", 0) > modparam("registrar", "nat_flag", 6) > modparam("nathelper", "natping_interval", 30) # Ping interval 30 s > modparam("nathelper", "ping_nated_only", 1) # Ping only clients behind NAT > if (nat_uac_test("3")) { > if (method == "REGISTER" || ! search("^Record-Route:")) { > log(2,"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 > }; > }; > ... and so on. > ______________________________________________________________ > Verschicken Sie romantische, coole und witzige Bilder per SMS! > Jetzt bei WEB.DE FreeMail: http://f.web.de/?mc=021193 > _______________________________________________ > Serusers mailing list > Serusers(a)lists.iptel.org > http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers > > > > _____________________________________________________________________ > Der WEB.DE SmartSurfer hilft bis zu 70% Ihrer Onlinekosten zu sparen! > http://smartsurfer.web.de/?mc=100071&distributionid=000000000071 > _______________________________________________ > Serusers mailing list > Serusers(a)lists.iptel.org > http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers > > _____________________________________________________________________ Der WEB.DE SmartSurfer hilft bis zu 70% Ihrer Onlinekosten zu sparen! http://smartsurfer.web.de/?mc=100071&distributionid=000000000071

1 0

[Serusers] Same aliases for diferent subscribers
by Ricardo Carvalho 10 Aug '06

10 Aug '06

Hi, Is it possible to give same alias to different subscribers? Trying to add same alias in serctl isn't well succeeded because it says that that alias is already in use by other user. Is it any other way to do it? Regards, Ricardo.

4 9

[Serusers] How to change display name
by Steve Blair 10 Aug '06

10 Aug '06

Is it possible to change just the display name portion of the from header? I'm trying to implement caller ID blocking but we cannot remove the actual from URI because that breaks our gateway based CDR generation. I'm hoping changing the from header to something like: from="Anonymous" <sip:376826@myschool.edu>;tag=003094 Thanks, Steve -- ISC Network Engineering The University of Pennsylvania 3401 Walnut Street, Suite 221A Philadelphia, PA 19104 voice: 215-573-8396 215-746-8001 fax: 215-898-9348 sip:blairs@net.isc.upenn.edu

3 8

Re: [Serusers] Multihomed SER & NAT
by Sebastian Gabris 10 Aug '06

10 Aug '06

After reading a bit more mails, I came to two possible problems: 1. fix_nated_contact() needs a registrar to work properly I dont use a registrar, since i register at the VoIP - Provider. or 2. fix_nated_contact() is not ment to be used on this scenario Any ideas on this? Sebastian > Hi everybody, > > need some help on nattraversal. > > i use a multihomed SER, one private IP & one public IP. > > MyUA(privateIP) <-> (privateIP)SER(publicIP) <-> UA-(VoIP - Provider, pubicIP) > > If i try to make a call from private net to public net, SER doesnt change the contact address. He changes the sdp - connection field but he, puts in the wrong IP - address. > Instead o writing down his public IP, SER writes his private IP. > Then SER forwards the call on his public interface to the provider, which will get wrong Contact & SDP information. > > After reviewing my logs i saw that SER does the nat_uac_test, but the fix_nat_contact & fix_sdp dont work dont do what they should do :) > > Here are the important bits of my config: > > fork=yes > log_stderror=no > > mhomed=1 > listen=10.x.x.x > listen=193.x.x.x > > loadmodule "/usr/lib/ser/modules/nathelper.so" > modparam("usrloc", "db_mode", 0) > > modparam("registrar", "nat_flag", 6) > modparam("nathelper", "natping_interval", 30) # Ping interval 30 s > modparam("nathelper", "ping_nated_only", 1) # Ping only clients behind NAT > > if (nat_uac_test("3")) { > > if (method == "REGISTER" || ! search("^Record-Route:")) { > log(2,"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 > }; > }; > > ... and so on. > > > > ______________________________________________________________ > Verschicken Sie romantische, coole und witzige Bilder per SMS! > Jetzt bei WEB.DE FreeMail: http://f.web.de/?mc=021193 > > _______________________________________________ > Serusers mailing list > Serusers(a)lists.iptel.org > http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers _____________________________________________________________________ Der WEB.DE SmartSurfer hilft bis zu 70% Ihrer Onlinekosten zu sparen! http://smartsurfer.web.de/?mc=100071&distributionid=000000000071

2 1

[Users] Troubles parsing headers
by Lars Sundqvist 10 Aug '06

10 Aug '06

Hi everyone, We have been having a problem with our openser installation for a while, certain REGISTER requests generates errors. The openser version we are running is 1.0.0 from cvs. Does anyone have a clue why the following register generates the error below? Register: xxx.xxx.xx.xx:5061 -> yyy.yyy.yyy.yyy:5060 REGISTER sip:sip.xxxxx.xxx SIP/2.0..Via: SIP/2.0/UDP xxx.xxx.xx.xx:5061;branch=z9hG4bK-39f541a2..From: aaaa.bbbbb <sip: username123(a)sip.xxxxx.xxx>;tag=ea 8cef4b108a99bco1..To: aaaa.bbbbb <sip: username123(a)sip.xxxxx.xxx>..Call-ID: b96fead3-f03493d4@xxx.xxx.xx.xx..CSeq: 2508 REGISTER..Max-Forwards: 70..Conta ct: aaaa.bbbbb <sip: username123@xxx.xxx.xx.xx:5061>;expires=3600..User-Agent: Linksys/RT31P2-2.0.10(LIc)..Content-Length: 0..Allow: ACK, BYE, CANCEL, IN FO, INVITE, NOTIFY, OPTIONS, REFER..Supported: x-sipura.... Error: /sbin/openser[18198]: ERROR: get_hdr_field: bad to header /sbin/openser[18198]: ERROR: bad header field /sbin/openser[18198]: ERROR: get_hdr_field: bad to header /sbin/openser[18198]: ERROR: bad header field /sbin/openser[18198]: ERROR:parse_from_header: bad from header /sbin/openser[18198]: xl_get_from: ERROR cannot parse FROM header /sbin/openser[18198]: ERROR: get_hdr_field: bad to header /sbin/openser[18198]: ERROR: bad header field /sbin/openser[18198]: xl_get_to: ERROR cannot parse TO header /sbin/openser[18198]: [REGISTER] from [<null>] to [<null>] /sbin/openser[18198]: ERROR: get_hdr_field: bad to header /sbin/openser[18198]: ERROR: bad header field /sbin/openser[18198]: ERROR:maxfwd:is_maxfwd_present : parsing MAX_FORWARD header failed! /sbin/openser[18198]: ERROR:parse_from_header: bad from header /sbin/openser[18198]: insert_RR(): From parsing failed /sbin/openser[18198]: record_route(): Error while inserting Record-Route line /sbin/openser[18198]: ERROR: get_hdr_field: bad to header /sbin/openser[18198]: ERROR: bad header field /sbin/openser[18198]: find_first_route: Error while parsing headers /sbin/openser[18198]: analyzing REGISTER request /sbin/openser[18198]: ERROR: get_hdr_field: bad to header /sbin/openser[18198]: ERROR: bad header field /sbin/openser[18198]: find_credentials(): Error while parsing headers /sbin/openser[18198]: pre_auth(): Error while looking for credentials /sbin/openser[18198]: ERROR: get_hdr_field: bad to header /sbin/openser[18198]: ERROR: bad header field /sbin/openser[18198]: ERROR: get_hdr_field: bad to header /sbin/openser[18198]: ERROR: bad header field /sbin/openser[18198]: ERROR: build_res_buf_from_sip_req: alas, parse_headers failed /sbin/openser[18198]: pre_auth(): Error while sending 400 reply Many thanks, Lars Sundqvist

2 6

[Serusers] Multihomed SER & NAT
by Sebastian Gabris 10 Aug '06

10 Aug '06

Hi everybody, need some help on nattraversal. i use a multihomed SER, one private IP & one public IP. MyUA(privateIP) <-> (privateIP)SER(publicIP) <-> UA-(VoIP - Provider, pubicIP) If i try to make a call from private net to public net, SER doesnt change the contact address. He changes the sdp - connection field but he, puts in the wrong IP - address. Instead o writing down his public IP, SER writes his private IP. Then SER forwards the call on his public interface to the provider, which will get wrong Contact & SDP information. After reviewing my logs i saw that SER does the nat_uac_test, but the fix_nat_contact & fix_sdp dont work dont do what they should do :) Here are the important bits of my config: fork=yes log_stderror=no mhomed=1 listen=10.x.x.x listen=193.x.x.x loadmodule "/usr/lib/ser/modules/nathelper.so" modparam("usrloc", "db_mode", 0) modparam("registrar", "nat_flag", 6) modparam("nathelper", "natping_interval", 30) # Ping interval 30 s modparam("nathelper", "ping_nated_only", 1) # Ping only clients behind NAT if (nat_uac_test("3")) { if (method == "REGISTER" || ! search("^Record-Route:")) { log(2,"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 }; }; ... and so on. ______________________________________________________________ Verschicken Sie romantische, coole und witzige Bilder per SMS! Jetzt bei WEB.DE FreeMail: http://f.web.de/?mc=021193

1 0

[Users] two phones ringing
by Mark Kent 10 Aug '06

10 Aug '06

I've got two Linksys phones (one spa3000, one spa942) and registered markkent@... from both on the openser1.0.1 box. >From a third device I call markkent@... and both ring. If I take my time answering one phone then everything works as expected. The CANCEL gets sent to the second phone and that phone says OK and maybe I get one spurious ring but it stops. I noticed that if I answer one phone really quickly then the other phone will keep on ringing. So, I looked at the traffic and this is what happens: The players are ORIGINATOR, OPENSER, ANSWEREDPHONE and IGNOREDPHONE ORIGINATOR sends the INVITE to OPENSER where it gets branched out to both ANSWEREDPHONE and IGNOREDPHONE Both phones send back "100 Trying" ANSWEREDPHONE sends "180 Ringing" and OPENSER relays that to ORIGINATOR ANSWEREDPHONE sends "200 OK" when I answer, and OPENSER relays that to ORIGINATOR OPENSER sends "CANCEL sip:markkent@IGNOREDPHONE-IP:5062" to IGNOREDPHONE about 0.6 seconds later OPENSER repeats the CANCEL IGNOREDPHONE sends back to OPENSER 481 Call Leg/Transaction Does Not Exist and does it twice, perhaps once for each CANCEL Then IGNOREDPHONE sends back "180 Ringing" IGNOREDPHONE rings, a lot, but does not send back "180 Ringing" messages There are a lot of "200 OK" messages exchanged between the IGNOREDPHONE and the OPENSER box. The IGNOREDPHONE took 5 seconds to send back the first "180 Ringing", these phones are side by side, although IGNOREDPHONE (the 942) is NAT'ed and ANSWEREDPHONE is not. The ngrep output is here: http://a.mainstreet.net/double-ring.txt What I would like to know is whether this is something I can and/or should handle in the openser configuration? If so, how? Thanks, -mark

2 1

Re: [Serusers] Call between two SER Server
by Andrey Kouprianov 10 Aug '06

10 Aug '06

Hi, 1. In your "domain" table (i.e. MySQL) in both SER's you'd have to add domain entries. E.g. # serctl domain add you.domain.name.net 2. Then into" trusted" tables add entries as follows: a. For 192.168.100 --> Login to MySQL, and insert entries into SER's trusted table: mysql> insert into trusted values ('192.168.200.200', 'any', '^sip:.*$'); b. And vice versa. 3. After that you need to modify ur ser.cfg whenever INVITE method is encountered: E.g. ... if(!allow_trusted() && !is_uri_host_local() ) { if (!proxy_authorize("you.domain.name.net","subscriber")) { proxy_challenge("you.domain.name.net","0"); break; } else if (!check_from()) { xlog("L_WARN", "[%Tf]:%rm: possible uri spoofing attempt!; IP=%is; from=%fu; to=%tu\n"); sl_send_reply("403", "Forbidden"); break; }; consume_credentials(); }; .... Before saving make sure these modules are properly loaded: uri_db.so, domain.so, permissions.so and xlog.so. 4. Then restart your restart your SER Hope that works. Andrey. On 8/1/06, Asep Saifudin <aseps2000(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Andrey, > > I have try to put in my ser.cfg like this below but still doesnt work. > in my first SER Server : > > if (!proxy_authorize("192.168.200.200", "subscriber")) { > proxy_challenge("192.168.200.200", "0"); > break; > }; > > and in my secondary SER server : > > if (!proxy_authorize(" 192.168.100.100", "subscriber")) { > proxy_challenge("192.168.100.100", "0"); > break; > }; > > Really need further advice from you or anyone who have implement for call > between 2 SER Server ? > > Thanks, > Asep > > 2006/8/1, Asep Saifudin <aseps2000(a)gmail.com>: > > > > can you give me step by step what should I do for this ? or sample for > this scheme ? > > And should I add my first SER server domain in my secondary SER server > domain table (in MySQL server) or how because I still dont undestand with > your explanation ? > > > > > > > > 2006/8/1, Andrey Kouprianov <andrey.kouprianov(a)gmail.com >: > > > > > Make your ser.cfg on receiving side configured so that it does NOT > > > authorize incoming calls from different domains. Otherwise, the caller > > > will always be rejected. > > > > > > On 8/1/06, Asep Saifudin < aseps2000(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > I have two running SER Server but I stil got problem to make call from > my > > > > first SER server to my secondary SER server. > > > > > > > > My first SER server info : > > > > 1. IP address = 192.168.100.100 > > > > 2. sample subscriber number is 10999 > > > > > > > > My second SER Server info : > > > > 1. IP address = 192.168.200.200 > > > > 2. sample subscriber number is 20099 > > > > > > > > My question is : > > > > How suberiber 10099 can call to subscriber 20099 ? > > > > What additional config should I put in each ser.cfg ? or > > > > should I use gatekeeper/softswitch ? > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > >

2 1

[Users] I can`t make a calling by using xlite at the client. Please help me...Please
by Ferianto siregar 10 Aug '06

10 Aug '06

Dear all, I would like to say thanks for everybody help and kind-hearted who always give me some helps to solve my problem. Thank you very much. Now, I have a problem in my openser. I can`t make a calling from client using the xlite. It is meant that the client can not make a call by using xlite ( It can not connect to server) . In xlite screen, it always shows "403 forbidden" message. Does anybody can give me a suggesstion what is meant? Where the problem comes from? Please help me ...Please. For the information: 1. The client use IP 202.95.149.2 2. This is the log message that I have got from xlite diagnostic: SEND TIME: 3836510 SEND >> 202.95.149.250:5060 REGISTER sip:pcr.ac.id SIP/2.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 202.95.149.40:5060;rport;branch=z9hG4bKC098998FE862469BBE0A3F218390D2B1 From: aldi <sip:123@pcr.ac.id>;tag=4145118495 To: aldi <sip:123@pcr.ac.id> Contact: "aldi" <sip:123@202.95.149.40:5060> Call-ID: AF8EEFDE9AD94CC5B910233C4AFA09BF(a)pcr.ac.id CSeq: 5795 REGISTER Expires: 1800 Max-Forwards: 70 User-Agent: X-Lite release 1105x Content-Length: 0 RECEIVE TIME: 3836512 RECEIVE << 202.95.149.250:5060 SIP/2.0 403 Forbidden Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 202.95.149.40:5060;rport=5060;branch=z9hG4bKC098998FE862469BBE0A3F218390D2B1 From: aldi <sip:123@pcr.ac.id>;tag=4145118495 To: aldi <sip:123@pcr.ac.id>;tag=98a2bfb09e790c090877fa710657efb6.0d98 Call-ID: AF8EEFDE9AD94CC5B910233C4AFA09BF(a)pcr.ac.id CSeq: 5795 REGISTER Server: OpenSer (1.1.0-tls (i386/linux)) Content-Length: 0 Warning: 392 202.95.149.250:5060 "Noisy feedback tells: pid=4439 req_src_ip=202.95.149.40 req_src_port=5060 in_uri=sip:pcr.ac.id out_uri=sip:pcr.ac.id via_cnt==1" 3.What is the meaning : " 2(4454) is_local(): Realm 'pcr.ac.id' is not local"? I got it when I run "openser" command. This is the message that I got: get_hdr_field: cseq <CSeq>: <1497> <REGISTER> 2(4454) DEBUG:maxfwd:is_maxfwd_present: value = 70 2(4454) parse_headers: flags=200 2(4454) DEBUG: get_hdr_body : content_length=0 2(4454) found end of header 2(4454) find_first_route: No Route headers found 2(4454) loose_route: There is no Route HF 2(4454) is_local(): Realm 'pcr.ac.id' is not local 2(4454) DEBUG: add_param: tag=888227406 2(4454) DEBUG:parse_to:end of header reached, state=29 2(4454) DBUG:parse_to: display={123}, ruri={sip:123@pcr.ac.id} 2(4454) is_local(): Realm 'pcr.ac.id' is not local 2(4454) parse_headers: flags=ffffffffffffffff 2(4454) check_via_address(202.95.149.2, 202.95.149.2, 0) 2(4454) DEBUG:destroy_avp_list: destroying list (nil) 2(4454) receive_msg: cleaning up 4(4460) udp_rcv_loop: probing packet received from 202.95.149.2 50195 5(4461) udp_rcv_loop: probing packet received from 202.95.149.2 50195 2(4454) udp_rcv_loop: probing packet received from 202.95.149.2 50195 4.This is the contain of mysql: mysql> select * from aliases; +----------+-----------+--------------------+----------+------+---------------------+------+---------------------------------------------------------------------+------+---------------------+-------+---------------------+--------+---------+| username | domain | contact | received | path | expires | q | callid | cseq | last_modified | flags | user_agent | socket | methods |+----------+-----------+--------------------+----------+------+---------------------+------+---------------------------------------------------------------------+------+---------------------+-------+---------------------+--------+---------+| 123 | pcr.ac.id | sip:coba@pcr.ac.id | NULL | NULL | 2006-08-09 02:53:59 | 1.00 | The-Answer-To-The-Ultimate-Question-Of-Life-Universe-And-Everything | 42 | 1970-01-01 07:00:00 | 128 | OpenSER Server FIFO | NULL | NULL || 456 | pcr.ac.id | sip:feri@pcr.ac.id | NULL | NULL | 2006-08-09 06:57:28 | 1.00 | The-Answer-To-The-Ultimate-Question-Of-Life-Universe-And-Everything | 42 | 1970-01-01 07:00:00 | 128 | OpenSER Server FIFO | NULL | NULL |+----------+-----------+--------------------+----------+------+---------------------+------+---------------------------------------------------------------------+------+---------------------+-------+---------------------+--------+---------+2 rows in set (0.00 sec) I do hope anybody can help me. I have tried to solve this problem 2 days but I can`t. Please help me..please.. Regards with cheers, Ferianto --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Next-gen email? Have it all with the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta. --------------------------------- Get your email and more, right on the new Yahoo.com

1 0

[Serusers] Crash Issues
by Suresh Arunachalam 10 Aug '06

10 Aug '06

Hello All, I am using ser-0.8.14 as the proxy and seeing the below given crash frequently. Please let me know what is causing the issue. The pool size is around 16mb. Loaded symbols for /lib/libnss_dns.so.2 #0 qm_malloc (qm=0x80cea20, size=16) at mem/q_malloc.c:239 239 FRAG_END(next)->prev_free=prev; (gdb) bt #0 qm_malloc (qm=0x80cea20, size=16) at mem/q_malloc.c:239 #1 0x080cea20 in mem_block () #2 0x08069dce in hostent_cpy (dst=0x80d0d74, src=0x80b8ce0) at proxy.c:133 #3 0x08069576 in mk_proxy (name=0xbfffe540, port=5060, proto=1) at proxy.c :228 #4 0x40296c41 in uri2proxy (uri=0xbfffe798, proto=16) at ut.h:120 #5 0x40295ab9 in uri2sock (uri=0x10, to_su=0xbfffe6b0, proto=16) at ut.h :141 #6 0x4029476a in build_dlg_ack (rpl=0xbfffe7a0, Trans=0x42533318, branch=16, to=0xbfffe748, len=0xbfffe7a0, next_hop=0xbfffe798) at t_msgbuilder.c:410 #7 0x402992a1 in build_local_ack (rpl=0x80d18c8, trans=0x10, branch=16, ret_len=0x10, next_hop=0x10) at t_reply.c:274 #8 0x40298621 in reply_received (p_msg=0x80d18c8) at t_reply.c:1217 #9 0x080569a0 in forward_reply (msg=0x80d18c8) at forward.c:504 #10 0x0806bea1 in receive_msg ( buf=0x80b9700 "SIP/2.0 200 OK\r\nVia: SIP/2.0/UDP 4.71.12.219:5068 ;branch=z9hG4bKe921.67e8dc61.0\r\nFrom: <sip:+xxxxxx@xx.xx.xx.xxx:xxxx>;tag=5df86c24f8e00fb2ae17ab041c094b88-7a49\r\nTo: <sip:+xxxxx@xx.xx.xx.xxx:"..., len=592, rcv_info=0x80d18c8) at receive.c:201 #11 0x080795ef in udp_rcv_loop () at udp_server.c:370 #12 0x0805aa89 in main_loop () at main.c:1107 #13 0x0805ce8e in main (argc=1108556168, argv=0xbfffed14) at main.c:2130 #14 0x42015574 in __libc_start_main () from /lib/tls/libc.so.6 (gdb) f 0 #0 qm_malloc (qm=0x80cea20, size=16) at mem/q_malloc.c:239 239 FRAG_END(next)->prev_free=prev; (gdb) list 239 234 235 prev=FRAG_END(frag)->prev_free; 236 next=frag->u.nxt_free; 237 prev->u.nxt_free=next; 238 if(prev) 239 FRAG_END(next)->prev_free=prev; 240 } 241 242 243 #ifdef DBG_QM_MALLOC (gdb) Looking forward for the reply Thanks Suresh

1 0

← Newer
1
...
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
...
37
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 2006