We are planning on deploying a couple of SER servers and integrate them with either SEMS or Asterisk for voicemail. However, we are a bit confused as to which version of SER to go with? From what we can tell, the latest stable version is 0.9.6. However, we know of the new 0.10.X version. Reading up on the site, there is some documentation that explains a little bit of the differences and/or migration recommendations/steps.
So, in an effort to keep life as simple as possible, which version should we work with? We are afraid that if we go through a learning cycle with 0.9.6 we're going to "suffer" when migrating to the new version, either because of the learning curve or because of a potential painful migration process.
Any recommendations?
Thanks
Help!
I've followed the SER documentation and searched the web like a mad
thing and found nothing useful.
I have an asterisk box here at home and want to put SER on it so I can
use SIP clients out in the real world (on the other side of my firewall)
to get to it.
Now, I have got SER set up and the phones register fine and everything,
BUT I cannot see how to get it to pass calls through to Asterisk.
I'm not using Asterisk realtime or anything like that - just plain old
asterisk with plain old config files.
I thought I had it right, but calls are just not getting to asterisk so
far as I can see.
I know it must be possible, I just can't see how to do it.
Regards
John Breen
Hello,
using ser 0.9.6
The following dialog is a re-invite, the re-invite is initiated by the
callee after putting the call on hold.
Problem is that SER answer with a 407 on the wrong port, Invite is
coming from port 62907 and SER answer to port 5060.
Problem doesn't occurs for the initial invite.
We have tried with other Uas without problems, just having problems with
this Ua (Avaya).
Any idea?
Best regards,
Olivier
U xxx.xx.xx.xx:62907 -> yy.yyy.yyy.yy:5060
INVITE sip:990099001@192.168.162.187 SIP/2.0.
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.162.181;branch=z9hG4bK309b82ccf.
Max-Forwards: 70.
Content-Length: 337.
To: "QE-A" <sip:990099001@yy.yyy.yyy.yy>;tag=f7983fe553e1941.
From: "QE-B" <sip:990099002@yy.yyy.yyy.yy>;tag=5bf8b4fb69fca84.
Call-ID: 7c933d3d19bb76c396b995202b18eb97(a)yy.yyy.yyy.yy.
CSeq: 567882513 INVITE.
Route:
<sip:990099002@yy.yyy.yyy.yy:5060;nat=yes;ftag=f7983fe553e1941;lr=on>.
P-Asserted-Identity: "QE-B" <sip:990099002@yy.yyy.yyy.yy>.
Allow: INVITE.
Allow: CANCEL.
Allow: OPTIONS.
Allow: BYE.
Allow: REFER.
Allow: INFO.
Allow: UPDATE.
Content-Type: application/sdp.
Contact: "QE-B" <sip:990099002@192.168.162.181>.
Supported: replaces.
User-Agent: NeuralX MxSF/v3.2.6.26.
.
v=0.
o=990099002 1136076203 1136076205 IN IP4 192.168.162.181.
s=-.
c=IN IP4 192.168.162.181.
t=0 0.
a=sendonly.
m=audio 20006 RTP/AVP 0 101 8 18 .
a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000.
a=rtpmap:101 telephone-event/8000.
a=rtpmap:8 PCMA/8000.
a=rtpmap:18 G729/8000.
a=fmtp:101 0-15.
a=fmtp:18 annexb=no.
a=ptime:20.
a=rtcp:20007 IN IP4 192.168.162.181.
U yy.yyy.yyy.yy:5060 -> xxx.xx.xx.xx:5060
SIP/2.0 407 Proxy Authentication Required.
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
192.168.162.181;branch=z9hG4bK309b82ccf;received=xxx.xx.xx.xx.
To: "QE-A" <sip:990099001@yy.yyy.yyy.yy>;tag=f7983fe553e1941.
From: "QE-B" <sip:990099002@yy.yyy.yyy.yy>;tag=5bf8b4fb69fca84.
Call-ID: 7c933d3d19bb76c396b995202b18eb97(a)yy.yyy.yyy.yy.
CSeq: 567882513 INVITE.
Proxy-Authenticate: Digest realm="yy.yyy.yyy.yy",
nonce="463f31b81a65dee3419ce3e4bfbecc253410cbf5".
Server: Sip EXpress router (0.9.6 (i386/freebsd)).
Content-Length: 0.
Warning: 392 yy.yyy.yyy.yy:5060 "Noisy feedback tells: pid=49990
req_src_ip=xxx.xx.xx.xx req_src_port=62907
in_uri=sip:990099001@192.168.162.187
out_uri=sip:990099001@192.168.162.187 via_cnt==1".
.
Hi Juha,
Exactly this is my point, 128 should work and 129 should fail,
especially since all related char buffers are allocated properly with
size [MAX_FROM_URI_LEN+1]
I think that the bug is here:
if (from_uri.len < MAX_FROM_URI_LEN) {
strncpy(from_uri_str, from_uri.s, from_uri.len);
from_uri_str[from_uri.len] = '\0';
} else {
LOG(L_ERR, "load_gws(): from_uri to large\n");
return -1;
}
It should be
if (from_uri.len <= MAX_FROM_URI_LEN)
George
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Juha Heinanen [mailto:jh@tutpro.com]
> Sent: Monday, May 07, 2007 5:44 PM
> To: Papadopoulos Georgios
> Cc: users(a)openser.org
> Subject: [Users] lcr: load_gws(): from_uri to large
>
> Papadopoulos Georgios writes:
>
> > I get the following error from lcr module > load_gws():
> from_uri to large > This happens when the rpid is exactly
> 128 characters long. If I make it > 127 long it works fine.
> This is on the 1.1.x branch. Has anyone else > noticed this?
>
> MAX_FROM_URI_LEN constant is defined as
>
> > #define MAX_FROM_URI_LEN 128
>
> i can change that to 256.
>
> -- juha
>
Disclaimer
The information in this e-mail and any attachments is confidential. It is intended solely for the attention and use of the named addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, or person responsible for delivering this information to the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Unless you are the intended recipient or his/her representative you are not authorized to, and must not, read, copy, distribute, use or retain this message or any part of it. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses.
Hello
I would like to know how to lookup to 2 ENUM trees (arpa and e164.org).
I have this config:
loadmodule "enum.so"
modparam("enum", "domain_suffix", "e164.org.")
if ( method=="INVITE" && uri=~"sip:\+[1-9][0-9]*@mydomain.com") {
if(!enum_query("e164.org.")) {
log(1, "log: ENUM not found :( \n");
}else{
log(1, "log: ENUM found :) \n");
if (!method=="REGISTER") record_route();
t_relay();
return;
}
}
Thanks
Regards
Joao Pereira
--
______________________________________________
João Gomes Pereira
FCCN
Av. do Brasil, nº 101
1700-066 Lisboa
tel: +351 218 440 100 - fax: +351 218 472 167
email|SIP: joao.pereira(a)fccn.pt
http://www.fccn.pt
______________________________________________
---
Aviso de Confidencialidade
Esta mensagem é exclusivamente destinada ao seu destinatário, podendo conter informação CONFIDENCIAL, cuja divulgação está expressamente vedada nos termos da lei. Caso tenha recepcionado indevidamente esta mensagem, solicitamos-lhe que nos comunique esse mesmo facto por esta via ou para o telefone +351 218 440 100 devendo apagar o seu conteúdo de imediato.
This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. It may contain CONFIDENTIAL information protected by law. If this message has been received by error, please notify us via e-mail or by telephone +351 218 440 100 and delete it immediately.
---
Here is the message dump that i get when using TCP as transport.
>
>
> On 5/3/07, Jiri Kuthan <jiri(a)iptel.org> wrote:
> > I think you would have to send message dumps first so that [serusers] volunteers
> > have material for providing an answer.
> >
> > -jiri
> >
> > At 12:07 03/05/2007, KUMAR wrote:
> > >-
> > >Hi all,
> > >I already posted this message yet havent got any replies. I really
> > >need to find this out.
> > >Please anyone reply to this problem.
> > >
> > >I am using SER-0.9.6 and the problem i'm having is this. When using
> > >the following ser.cfg, it works well when the transport UDP is used.
> > >But when transport TCP is used, then it only results in one way IM,
> > >only from the UA from which the INVITE is being sent. Moreover, when
> > >record_route is used instead of record_route_preset, then even that
> > >one way IM doesn't work. But it works well with UDP.
> > >
> > >Can anyone please point me as to where the problem might be??
> > >Thank you in advance.
> > >
> > >kumar
> > >
> > >
> > >Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name=ser.cfg
> > >X-Attachment-Id: f_f18sg2bl
> > >Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="ser.cfg"
> > >
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >Serusers mailing list
> > >Serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
> > >http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/
> >
> >
>
>
Guys,
I'm wondering what solutions there are to this problem. We have some
NATed clients making outgoing calls. The NAT traversal is done using
mediaproxy and works fine. However, we have a problem with 183 responses
and early media ringing sounds.
The problem is that before the NATed client starts sending out RTP data,
mediaproxy doesn't know which IP and port to send the RTP traffic to.
Some of the NETed clients don't start sending out RTP traffic until the
call is connected, therefore none of the early media (ringing sounds)
reaches the user - making it sound like dead air.
Any ideas?
Jeff