Hello!
I've tried to modify my setup to use rtpproxy, following the guide
posted at http://siprouter.onsip.org/doc/gettingstarted/, most of it
works fine, but i have a small but annoying problem:
When i receive a invite from a UA, i verify the identity with
proxy_authorize. However, the proxy-authenticate-request is not sent
to the originating sip-port of the UA but to 5060 for some reason.
In my old setup this worked flawless, the proxy authorize request is
sent to the correct external port of the phone.
To me it seems there is no difference in this part of the route-plan,
so how does this happen?
I have attached both config-files and a ngrep of the requests(*.old
is the working setup, *.rtpproxy is the new setup that doesn't work),
maybe someone can help me with this? Thanks in advance!
Regards
Christian
Hi Bill,
Bill Zhang wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I just sew the new face of www.iptel.org <http://www.iptel.org/> and
> see they start to move things forward now. Got some questions about
> SER versus OPENSER:
>
> 1. What is the OPENSER 1.1.0 equivalent version for SER? 0.10.x or
> 0.9.x? Is there a lot of difference?
>
OpenSER 1.1.0 is the latest stable release. AFAIK, last stable release
for SER is 0.9.x for more than one year ago....
..yes there are a lot of differences...
> 1. SER has a SEMS server, does OPENSER has something equivalent?
>
SEMS can be also used with OpenSER
>
> 1. When will OPENSER have the new Presence module? I know it’s
> soon, but how soon?
>
in a matter of weeks - are you interested in testing it?
Regards,
Bogdan
Hi list,
my configuration file contains the following block:
% if (is_method("INVITE")){
% force_rtp_proxy("");
% t_on_failure("1");
% append_hf("P-hint: RTP session ports reserved by rtpproxy\r\n");
% };
If I dump the SIP dialog on the network, I can indeed see the "P-hint"
header.
Then, the configuration file contains:
% failure_route[1] {
% if (!(status == "407")) {
% unforce_rtp_proxy();
% append_hf("P-hint: RTP session dropped\r\n");
% } else {
% append_hf("P-hint: Proxy authentication required, don't drop RTP session\r\n");
% }
% }
Unfortunately, when a 407 reply code comes back from the registrar,
the outgoing SIP packet doesn't have any "P-hint" header. I didn't
manage to test the other cases, unfortunately.
Did I miss something in the configuration file ?
Thank you.
Regards,
--
Jeremie Le Hen
< jeremie at le-hen dot org >< ttz at chchile dot org >
Hi all
Please help out
________________________________
From: Mann, Kamal
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 5:46 PM
To: 'serusers(a)lists.iptel.org'
Subject: RE: [Serusers] Implementing call fwd
Hi all
I am implementing Blind call forwarding with 0.9.6 SER version. But with
current configuration it's not working. Please help on same.
I am enclosing small part of usr_prefrences table & my ser.cfg.
Please copy the list.
It depends on what you want to achieve.
Blind forwarding is to me the following:
- Check if this is a local user (myself)
- Check if this is an alias (lookup("aliases"))
- Check if the AOR is registered (lookup("location"))
- Check if the user has blind call forwarding
- If no, relay to looked up location
- If yes, rewrite ruri. (Then what you do depends on your setup
complexity, either you forward to PSTN, so just rewrite to GW and relay,
or you allow recursive forwarding. Then you need to either relay to
yourself or call a route that runs the above described process. Or
simpler, you can do as you do by duplicating the lookups, now with the
new ruri. Then you allow only one step of forwarding, not recursive.)
g-)
Kamal.Mann(a)t-systems.com wrote:
>
> I think so, because we need to check is r-uri (to which call get
> forwarded) is registered or not.
>
> I am newbie if anything wrong please suggests me.
>
>
>
> Thanks in anticipation
>
> Kamal Mann
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Greger V. Teigre [mailto:greger@teigre.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 27, 2006 8:19 PM
> *To:* Mann, Kamal
> *Cc:* serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Serusers] Implementing call fwd
>
>
>
> You do lookup("aliases") and lookup("location") AFTER you have changed
> the uri through avp_pushto from usr_preferences.
> Is this really what you want?
> g-)
>
> Kamal.Mann(a)t-systems.com <mailto:Kamal.Mann@t-systems.com> wrote:
>
>
> Hi All
> I want to setup Blind call forwarding. Like if a uri - mann(a)iptel.org <mailto:mann@iptel.org>
> is not registered with SER but this user had already configured in ser
> database table usr_prefrences that his call should be forwarde to
> another uri kamal(a)iptel.org <mailto:kamal@iptel.org>. For that my usr_prefrence table is like
>
>
>
>> USR_PREFRENCES table
>>
>> +------+----------+-----------+-----------+---------------------+------
>>
> +
>
>> ---------------+
>>
>> | uuid | username | domain | attribute | value | type
>>
> |
>
>> modified |
>>
>> +------+----------+-----------+-----------+---------------------+------
>>
> +
>
>> ----------------+
>>
>> | | bhaskar | debian | callfwd | kamal(a)iptel.org <mailto:kamal@iptel.org>
>> | 0 | 20060926165852 |
>>
>> | | mann | iptel.org | callfwd | sip:kamal@iptel.org <mailto:sip:kamal@iptel.org> | 0
>>
> |
>
>> 20060926150443 |
>>
>> | | prateek | iptel.org | callfwd | kamal(a)iptel.org <mailto:kamal@iptel.org> | 0
>>
> |
>
>> 20060926170701 |
>>
>> +------+----------+-----------+-----------+---------------------+------
>>
> +
>
>> ----------------+
>>
>
>
> Is this entry is correct?? Is there any flaw in my ser.cfg??
> Any help would be appreciated.
> Regards
> Kamal Mann
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Blair [mailto:blairs@isc.upenn.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 2:26 PM
> To: Mann, Kamal
> Cc: serusers(a)lists.iptel.org <mailto:serusers@lists.iptel.org>
> Subject: Re: [Serusers] Implementing call fwd
>
>
>
> Does your config file relay REFER messages? It needs to in order to
> perform the transfer.
>
> Kamal.Mann(a)t-systems.com <mailto:Kamal.Mann@t-systems.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Hi all
>>
>> Please help out
>>
>>
>>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>> *From:* Mann, Kamal
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 26, 2006 5:46 PM
>> *To:* 'serusers(a)lists.iptel.org <mailto:serusers@lists.iptel.org>'
>> *Subject:* RE: [Serusers] Implementing call fwd
>>
>> Hi all
>>
>> I am implementing Blind call forwarding with 0.9.6 SER version. But
>> with current configuration it's not working. Please help on same.
>>
>> I am enclosing small part of usr_prefrences table & my ser.cfg.
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
> -
>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Serusers mailing list
>> Serusers(a)lists.iptel.org <mailto:Serusers@lists.iptel.org>
>> http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Serusers mailing list
> Serusers(a)lists.iptel.org <mailto:Serusers@lists.iptel.org>
> http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
>
>
>
I am getting the following error in the log file:
Sep 28 06:24:25 beta proxydispatcher[24129]: error: couldn't retrieve DNS
SRV record '_mediaproxy._tcp.domain.co.nz': (111, 'Connection refused')
However I think the DNS records are OK.
dig SRV _mediaproxy._tcp.domain.co.nz
; <<>> DiG 9.2.3 <<>> SRV _mediaproxy._tcp.domain.co.nz
;; global options: printcmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 63894
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 3, AUTHORITY: 2, ADDITIONAL: 3
;; QUESTION SECTION:
;_mediaproxy._tcp.domain.co.nz. IN SRV
;; ANSWER SECTION:
_mediaproxy._tcp.domain.co.nz. 86100 IN SRV 0 100 25060
c-mp-03.domain.co.nz.
_mediaproxy._tcp.domain.co.nz. 86100 IN SRV 10 50 25060
c-mp-01.domain.co.nz.
_mediaproxy._tcp.domain.co.nz. 86100 IN SRV 10 50 25060
c-mp-02.domain.co.nz.
;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
domain.co.nz. 258929 IN NS ns2.widge.net.
domain.co.nz. 258929 IN NS ns1.widge.net.
;; ADDITIONAL SECTION:
c-mp-03.domain.co.nz. 86129 IN A 60.234.nnn.nnn
ns1.widge.net. 170576 IN A 82.165.160.211
ns2.widge.net. 170576 IN A 82.165.163.115
;; Query time: 83 msec
;; SERVER: 64.62.196.100#53(64.62.196.100)
;; WHEN: Thu Sep 28 06:28:07 2006
;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 276
On the target server (c-mp-03.domain.co.nz) there's something getting
through to to mediaproxy as shown in the log file:
Sep 28 06:26:21 domain01 mediaproxy[16128]: command status
Sep 28 06:26:21 domain01 mediaproxy[16128]: command execution time: 0.54 ms
Sep 28 06:26:41 domain01 mediaproxy[16128]: command status
Sep 28 06:26:41 domain01 mediaproxy[16128]: command execution time: 0.55 ms
Could anyone advise how to resolve this issue?
Regards
Cameron
Hi all,
When i call from pstn to sip phone, and hang up it before someone pick up the sip phone, then my sems will show this error and immediately end the sems.
Error: changeSIPState(IsdnCall.cpp:339):unhandled SIP state transition(inbound) from (DISCONNECTED|DISCONNECTED) to (CONNECTED|DISCONNECTED)
What could be the problem?
Any help is appreciated. Thanks
Regards,
jorain
Hi,
I just sew the new face of www.iptel.org <http://www.iptel.org/> and see
they start to move things forward now. Got some questions about SER versus
OPENSER:
1. What is the OPENSER 1.1.0 equivalent version for SER? 0.10.x or
0.9.x? Is there a lot of difference?
2. SER has a SEMS server, does OPENSER has something equivalent?
3. When will OPENSER have the new Presence module? I know it's soon,
but how soon?
Thanks in advance.
Best Regards,
Bill
> >The problem is easy to reproduce: just reducing the children parameter
> >to 1, and openser will not handle a second call (obviously that doesn't
> >happen in Debian, using the same configuration for openser).
I just tested this on FreeBSD 6.1-RELEASE, using openser 1.1.0, and I
could place two simultaneous calls without any issues or delays.
As you may know, freebsd has a few different thread libraries.
I made sure all my compiles, for everything in and around openser,
was compiled with -pthread on the command line.
-mark
