Hi all,
I would like to know, how can i validate a field-hf(realm) of the
request SIP, in case Register, with a column(realm/domain) of the
table, which was created by me, in the mysql...
will be that by avp ? or i will have of the create a module, for this...?
Any advices welcome!
cheers,
Marcio
I haven' noticed but the whole error finally message by executing :
sudo serctl moni
is:
[: 1074: ==: unexpected operator
[: 1074: 0: unexpected operator
_________________________________________________________________
Explore the seven wonders of the world
http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=7+wonders+world&mkt=en-US&form=QBRE
Hello,
I'm testing with kamailio 1.4 (just got revision 5050). I'm stressing it
using a sipp scenario to verify which population of subscribers kamailio can
handle.
Using openser 1.3.3 I could easily keep thousands of subscribers online even
when running on a VirtualMachine hosted on a desktop computer (last time I
tested this it was about 8000 subscribers).
But I'm running kamailio on a production machine and when I reach around 700
subscribers, kamailio starts to log this:
Oct 9 17:44:20 ipx029 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[7689]:
ERROR:auth:build_auth_hf: no more nonces can be generated
Oct 9 17:44:20 ipx029 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[7689]: ERROR:auth:challenge:
failed to generate nonce
And the registration fails.
Is anybody else seeing this?
regards,
takeshi
Hi!
I'm trying to register my Sip Proxy Server (Kamailio) to my service provider, but I have to do it sending my user name and password. Right now I'm trying to make this work with Asterisk acting as a Gateway to my SIP SP, but there most be or should be a way to do it with kamailio, because based in SIP Connect Technical Recommendations the SPS of the client should register directly to the SPS of the Service Provider, without using any gateway. I know there is a way to make it with the UAC module, but only if the service provider match an IP address, not with user name and password.
with best regards
David Cespedes.
I have a situation where SER is gumming up the works.
The problem is that I have a call where the INVITE fails
because a PSTN gateway hasn't authorized the SIP invitee
to call a given number, as intended. The PSTN switch is
returning a "503 Service Unavailable" as is expected,
but SER is then sending the SIP invitee a
"500 Service Unavailable" instead of the original message,
which is wrong in several ways.
Here is the ngrep of what SER received from the PSTN switch
(which is the desired answer in this situation):
#
U 2008/10/09 18:08:45.045015 10.133.0.2:5060 -> 10.133.90.6:5060
SIP/2.0 503 Service Unavailable.
Call-ID: 14407805-3432564525-49719(a)sbc1.sometelco.com.
CSeq: 1 INVITE.
From: <sip:8019995678@209.x.x.x>;tag=3432564525-49731.
To:
<sip:9179891234@208.x.x.x:5060;user=phone>;tag=000a0285+1+4bae000a+de6c6831.
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 10.133.90.6;branch=z9hG4bKaa0f.96addb37.0.
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
209.x.x.x:5060;branch=z9hG4bKafec84c056d5d9ac97d27cc12d3dbb92.
Server: DC-SIP/2.0.
Content-Length: 0.
Retry-After: 3.
.
That response code (503 Service Unavailable) is what should be
sent back to the call originator, who can cope with it and
redirect the call. However, here is the ngrep of what SER
transmitted on to the invitee instead:
#
U 2008/10/09 18:08:45.050440 10.133.90.6:5060 -> 209.x.x.x:5060
SIP/2.0 500 Service Unavailable.
To:
<sip:9179891234@208.x.x.x:5060;user=phone>;tag=b11e68d9aa35b34c54f995457fe194f9-0069.
From: <sip:8019995678@209.x.x.x>;tag=3432564525-49731.
Call-ID: 14407805-3432564525-49719(a)sbc1.sometelco.com.
CSeq: 1 INVITE.
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
209.x.x.x:5060;branch=z9hG4bKafec84c056d5d9ac97d27cc12d3dbb92.
Server: Sip EXpress router (2.0.0-rc1 (x86_64/freebsd)).
Content-Length: 0.
.
And the calling party receives the confusing
"503 Service Unavailable".
The onreply_route routine in use is a strip-down of what is found
in the PSTN sample (page 54 of the SER Getting Started manual),
and it makes no attempt to alter response codes:
onreply_route["PSTN_REPLY"]
{
xlog("L_ERR","In onreply_route %rs %rr");
force_send_socket("10.133.90.6"); #emit on em1
fix_nated_contact("208.x.x.x"); /*Fixes Contact:*/
# Apply RTP proxy if necessary, but only for INVITE transactions
# and 183 or 2xx replies
if (@cseq.method != "INVITE") return;
xlog("L_ERR","onreply_route[INVITE_REPLY] R1 %rs %rr");
if ((status =~ "(183)|2[0-9][0-9]") &&
search("^(Content-Type|c):.*application/sdp")) {
xlog("L_ERR","In onreply_route FIXING PROXY");
force_rtp_proxy("e","208.x.x.x");
}
return;
}
From debug messages (show below), the call to force_rtp_proxy()
is not being performed, so in theory this routine is left with
the 503 still intact.
The xlog message shows the 503 value was still there on entry to
onreply_route as well as near the end of the routine:
Oct 9 18:08:45 ser1 /usr/local/sbin/ser[1820]: In onreply_route 503
Service Unavailable
Oct 9 18:08:45 ser1 /usr/local/sbin/ser[1820]:
onreply_route[INVITE_REPLY] R1 503 Service Unavailable
The "FIXING PROXY' debug message was not reached, as expected.
So what is causing:
503 Service Unavailable.
to mysteriously turn into
500 Service Unavailable.
which isn't even the correct RFC textual response for a
500 code. This is being seen in ser-2.0.0-rc1 and
is completely repeatable.
Ideas? Suggestions? Thanks in advance!
Hi,
I have a problem with the serctl utility. Even though the ser process starts without any problems, when i am trying
to use the monitor by executing serctl moni i get the following error [: 1074: 0: unexpected operator. All seems to work (making call etc) but monitor.
If the number 1074 points to a line from the serctl then i attach is my serctl source (i don't know if that helps):
1073 cisco_restart)
1074 if [ "$#" -ne 2 ] ; then
1075 usage
1076 exit 1
1077 fi
Any suggestions.?
Thank you for your time.
_________________________________________________________________
Connect to the next generation of MSN Messenger
http://imagine-msn.com/messenger/launch80/default.aspx?locale=en-us&source=…
Hi all,
I'm having a problem when the user places the call on hold.
When the user removes the call on hold, only one side hears the call.
Does anyone know what is wrong?
The dialog of the call is attached.
Thanks.
Diego.