sr-users November 2007

sr-users@lists.kamailio.org

138 participants
248 discussions

[OpenSER-Users] Preserving domain name on route()

by Daniel Corbe

So, externally I'm using DNS SRV records to get traffic to my proxy server. Once it hits my proxy server though, I want to preserve the domain name portion of the URI, but still route the traffic around from server to server. Currently I'm using rewritehostport to forward traffic onto another box. This of course changes the field I'm interested in preserving. Is there another way to route traffic around? The only other option I see is to use 1 set of SRV records externally and another set of SRV records internally. Thanks. -Daniel

17 years

[OpenSER-Users] [OT] Nortel CS2000 and "RPID" / "P-Asserted-Identity"

by Iñaki Baz Castillo

Hi, I need to send SIP traffic from my OpenSer to a Nortel CS2000 (SIP_2_PSTN gateway). I have a bad new: the provider tells me that they set the callerid with the "From" I send. I've asked them to support "RPID" or "P-Asserted-Identity" headers (still waiting for a reply). In case I can only use "From" I can modify it with UAC module, but I also know this is very anti-RFC3261 behaviour. Does anyone know if Nortel CS2000 can use "RPID" or "P-Asserted-Identity" to set the PSTN calling number? What do you think about changing From header? for example: 200(a)domain.com -> 00123223223234@IP Thanks for any response. -- Iñaki Baz Castillo ibc(a)in.ilimit.es

17 years

[OpenSER-Users] Permissions Modile - BYE handling

by Douglas Garstang

So, I've been playing around with the permissions module. It's working ok, except... I am sending calls from Asterisk to OpenSER, and then onto an ITSP. Calls only flow in this outbound direction. There are NO inbound calls. I put the IP addresses of the Asterisk servers into the address table and used allow_source_address() to confirm the calls where allowed. However, I found that I also had to put the IP's of the ITSP's in the address table or otherwise when the remote end hangs up and sends a BYE message the call to allow_source_address() returns false. This isn't that big a deal, but it seems messy. It also means that the ITSP, being in the address list, could send calls to us, and we don't want that. How do I work around this? Do I do: if ( allow_source_address("1") || method=="BYE" ) { .... } What about CANCEL? I haven't tried that. The same thing goes for putting IP's in the trusted table and using if_trusted(). Douglas. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

17 years

[OpenSER-Users] Exported Statistics

by Daniel Corbe

Hello, Several modules have "exported statistics" which may be extremely useful to me in monitoring my network. The module documentation isn't clear on how to get access to these statistics. Can anyone tell me how I would probe my OpenSER box for this information? Thanks. -Daniel

17 years

Re: [OpenSER-Users] Problem with RINSTANCE in X-LITE 3.0

by Thiago Maluf

Hi Mr. Castillo, I tried it, but don't work. My problem is: - Each Register created by X-LITE 3.0 is a new contact because each message have parameter RINSTANCE with new value. - So OpenSER will keep in your location table all the contacts received. - I want break it, so for each Register Message Openser will update this contact in your location table. My location table (Replace My Ip Number to xxxxxxxxxxxx): id | username | domain | contact | received | path | expires | q | callid | cseq | last_modified | flags | cflags | user_agent | socket | methods ----+----------+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+----------+------+---------------------+------+----------------------------------------------+------+---------------------+-------+--------+----------------------------------+--------------------------+--------- 36 | teste1 | | sip:teste1@xxxxxxxxx:27420;rinstance=457f14a9ad568c74 | | | 2007-11-14 16:54:05 | 0.00 | YjY5YmFkZDRkZjBmOTliOWFiNmY2ODViMmRmMTg3ZjQ. | 2 | 2007-11-14 15:54:05 | 0 | 0 | X-Lite release 1011s stamp 41150 | udp:xxxxxxxxxxxx:5060 | 5951 37 | teste1 | | sip:teste1@xxxxxxxxxxxx:9150;rinstance=d491e76ae7d17c63 | | | 2007-11-14 17:01:09 | 0.00 | OTdiNDM4Y2M4NWEzMjIwMmU5MWE1Y2E5M2E3N2VkNjY. | 2 | 2007-11-14 16:01:09 | 0 | 0 | X-Lite release 1011s stamp 41150 | udp:xxxxxxxxxxxx:5060 | 5951 38 | teste1 | | sip:teste1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx:32448;rinstance=a88d552b74e3ebbc | | | 2007-11-14 17:07:13 | 0.00 | ZTE4YTE4OTVlOGJjYTExM2IxM2RiZjFlOGMyNzI3Nzk. | 2 | 2007-11-14 16:07:13 | 0 | 0 | X-Lite release 1011s stamp 41150 | udp:xxxxxxxxxxxx:5060 | 5951 Then this problem is just with X-LITE 3.0 Already talked with CounterPath' Support and this error is knowledge them and in the next version will be removed. But still in demo this new version, and will need long time to be released. Wait your help. Thiago! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- El Wednesday 14 November 2007 14:55:00 Thiago Maluf escribi?: > Hi list, > The X-Lite 3.0 create one new rinstance to each REGISTER Message. > Therefore the next register will be one new contact in location table. > Because this new register have new contact. > So it's my problem. I should in soon config my OpenSER to just allow one > register by user. And with this problem, I won't config it. > Thanks in Advanced, Ok, then you can use: modparam("registrar", "method_filtering", 1) so just contacts that "Allow" the actual method (INVITE, MESSAGE or whatever) will be called. For this you should, in each REGISTER, do a DB query (or FIFO command) to test if there was a previous entry for this location, and in that case modify the "methods" field of new entry: http://openser.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/openser/trunk/parser/msg_parser.h… -- I?aki Baz Castillo ibc(a)in.ilimit.es -- ---------------------------------------------------------------- THIAGO MALUF RESENDE e-mail: malufrj(a)gmail.com

17 years

[OpenSER-Users] Problem with RINSTANCE in X-LITE 3.0

by Thiago Maluf

Hi list, The X-Lite 3.0 create one new rinstance to each REGISTER Message. Therefore the next register will be one new contact in location table. Because this new register have new contact. So it's my problem. I should in soon config my OpenSER to just allow one register by user. And with this problem, I won't config it. Thanks in Advanced, Thiago ---------------------------------------------------------------- THIAGO MALUF RESENDE Voip Developer e-mail: malufrj(a)gmail.com

17 years

[OpenSER-Users] Clients behind the same NAT

by Daniel

HI all, I've read the solutions proposed at http://www.openser.org/dokuwiki/doku.php/examples:caller-callee-behind-same… 2 client behind the same NAT. The clients may be behind the same NAT, but on different sub-net (for example, one on 192.168.10.x and another on 192.168.2.x). In this case, checking source and destination IP, to discriminate against behind or not the same NAT, is not enough - they can't reach each othere anyway. What do you think? Regards, daniel -- Daniel Grotti ________________________ e-mail : d.grotti(a)gmail.com

17 years

[OpenSER-Users] $ruri PV missing from pseudovariables wiki page

by Ovidiu Sas

Hi all, It seems that somehow the description for $ruri PV is missing from the pseudovariables wiki page. Regards, Ovidiu Sas

17 years

[OpenSER-Users] presence module - wrong Subscription-State when doing un-subscribe ?

by Pascal Maugeri

Hi I'm doing stability testing against presence module and after "several" requests an un-subscribe request (SUBSCRIBE with Expires=0) triggers a NOTIFY with a payload and the following Subscription-State header value: Subscription-State: active;expires=0 In my humble opinion this is incorrect as the RFC 3265 section says in section 3.3.6: Note that the NOTIFY messages triggered by SUBSCRIBE messages with "Expires" headers of 0 will contain a "Subscription-State" value of "terminated", and a "reason" parameter of "timeout". Ref.: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3265#section-3.3.6 Best regards, Pascal

17 years

[OpenSER-Users] Using Carrierroute - Weighted fail over instead of percentage groups...

by Kyle Stone

I'm wondering if it's possible to have weighted failover groups instead of % balanced groups.. In Example: domain register { prefix 011 { max_targets = 2 target int.domain.com { hash_index = 1 status = 1 comment = "Try me first.." } target int2.domain.com { hash_index = 2 status = 1 comment = "Try me second.." } } } And if the one with the lowest hash_index responds with a 5XX/6XX/Temporary etc error, send the call to the next highest hash_index, before looking for a shorter prefix? Essobi

17 years

← Newer
1
...
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
...
25
Older →

Jump to page:

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 November 2007