sr-users March 2008

sr-users@lists.kamailio.org

169 participants
237 discussions

[OpenSER-Users] serializing parallel forking

by jh＠tutpro.com

a few days ago there was a question on if lcr module is able to serialize parallel forking of branches with the same q value. i replied that there is no such capability in lcr module. now that i have thought about the matter a bit, in my opinion the best solution is to write a separate serialize function that rewrites the q values rather than trying adding yet another feature to already too complex lcr module. -- juha

16 years, 8 months

[Serusers] Cool New Website!

by Goran Donev

Cool New Website. www.dialaway4free.com I think they are using a combination of Ser and Asterisk to achieve this service. Everyone should look into it. Thanks

16 years, 8 months

[OpenSER-Users] OpenSER & NAT Helper

by Ross Beer

Hi, I am looking to implement an OpenSER NAT helper. I need OpenSER to correct mistakes in SIP packets and pass them on to Asterisk. I do not want OpenSER to handle registrations. Does anyone have any good examples for this type of setup? Kind regards, Ross _________________________________________________________________ Who's friends with who and co-starred in what? http://www.searchgamesbox.com/celebrityseparation.shtml

16 years, 8 months

Re: [OpenSER-Users] OpenSER & NAT Help

by Peter Lemenkov

2008/3/6, Ross Beer <ross_beer(a)hotmail.com>: > Just general sip message problems, i.e. if a user is behind a firewall. Take a look at the following commands: force_rport fix_nated_contact fix_nated_sdp force_rtp_proxy Don't forget also to mark (with setflag()) registered users behind NAT and fix replies in onreply_route. > I think I need to use the NAT Helper module, however I can not seam to > pass registrations on to Asterisk. BTW don't forget to CC to users(a)openser.org (this maillist badly configured) -- With best regards!

16 years, 8 months

[Serusers] How to force IPtel.org SIP proxy not to include RTP proxy in Media path (achive peer-to-peer flow)

by girish kumar

Hi, I have 2 SIP based softphones (Xlite) registered on IPtel.org SIP service and testing the calls among them. These 2 softphones are behind different NAT and IPtel.org SIP proxy is replacing the SDP connection details in Call setup message (Invite and 200 OK) with RTPproxy IP/ports. Hence, RTPproxy is relaying the Voice media stream among them during the call. Although, both the softphones are behind different NAT address but these are not Symmetric NATs and hence RTP can directly flow between these softphone using STUN discovery. Is it possible to disable the RTP proxy behaviour of IPtel.org SER server for these 2 softphones through some configuration changes or any special header parameter in call setup message? In User Management web interface of IPtel.org, there is a option to specify the connectivity realm for a user account under My Account -> Other tab. The description of this field is "connectivity realm - behind the same NAT or possibility to communicate directly". I believe this field is playing some part in NAT transversal mechanism of Iptel.org SER implementation. Can anyone please describe the significance of this user account parameter? Can it be used to disable NAT transversal of media stream for some individual clients? I tried putting in same value of this field for 2 user accounts but Iptel.org SIP server still proxied media stream between these 2 user accounts through its RTP proxy. Thanks in advance. Girish ____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

16 years, 8 months

[OpenSER-Users] OpenSER Randomly crashes.

by Sergio Gutierrez

Hello everybody. I have written to list these days, I am still having the same symptom, so I apologize for writting again. My OpenSER 1.3 installation running on Solaris Sparc is facing random and unexpected crashes, in appearance related to timer process. The last core presents the following backtrace #0 0xfe977a04 in get_expired_dlgs (time=4233810208) at dlg_timer.c:194 #1 0xfe977540 in dlg_timer_routine (ticks=7980, attr=0x0) at dlg_timer.c:210 #2 0x000a839c in timer_ticker (timer_list=0x15ec00) at timer.c:275 #3 0x000a80ec in run_timer_process (tpl=0x1b8088, do_jiffies=1) at timer.c :357 #4 0x000a8668 in start_timer_processes () at timer.c:386 #5 0x00035ea8 in main_loop () at main.c:873 #6 0x000397c4 in main (argc=-4195024, argv=0x150e9c) at main.c:1372 Thanks in advance for any hint you can give me. Best regards. Sergio Gutierrez

16 years, 8 months

Re: [Serusers] SER + Fax service

by roayu

Hi Ali, When I do the testing, it seems that in the SER, there are something configured for requiring an authentification for the re-invite. Does SER send an authentificatin required back? Thanks. Best regards, RoaYu _____ From: Ali Zaidi [mailto:aligzaidi@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 2:06 PM To: roayu Cc: serusers(a)lists.iptel.org Subject: Re: [Serusers] SER + Fax service Roa, It will work, as long as you use g711, make sure both end use same codec. The reason i said use g711 because fax does not like any compression during transmission, so keep it simple. Ali... On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 9:30 PM, roayu <roayu(a)ctisys.net <mailto:roayu@ctisys.net> > wrote: Good day! I just brought an ATA that support Fax and I would like to know does SER able to handle the fax service as well? My environment is as the following: Fax machine A --> ATA --> SER --> ATA --> Fax machine B Is there any issue to perform the above transaction? Or is there any setting that I need to configure on SER ? Thanks. Best regards, Roa Yu _______________________________________________ Serusers mailing list Serusers(a)lists.iptel.org <mailto:Serusers@lists.iptel.org> http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers <http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers>

16 years, 8 months

[Serusers] separately calls limitation

by tatarskiy＠severen.net

Нello ! I need of help (it is important for me) Canaanite ! Я использую SER Sip EXpress Router 0.9.6), пока в режиме теста. Он у меня работает как: - Location Server (+ Auth); - Proxy Server; Используется MySQL. Вопрос (question) ! Как мне сделать так, чтобы SER ограничивал колличество вызовов по номеру и/или по имени !? Пример: number(E164) 8121111111 - 5 lines number(E164) 8122222222 - 3 lines number(E164) 8123333333 - 1 line username "Sergey" ------ 2 lines username "Alexey" ------ 9 lines Если можно, то приведите пример ser.cfg Спасибо.

16 years, 8 months

[OpenSER-Users] OpenSER + OpenXcap for pres-rules: no NOTIFY

by greg.co

Hi all, I am stuck with a presence authorization problem using openSer 1.3 and openXcap 0.9.9. I have read some similar posts in the mailing list but I couldn't find a solution, so I'll try to explain my scenario to see if it is my mistake or it is a bug. I explain the scenario: User test1 and test2 successfully register and sunscribe to presence.winfo. Both receive a NOTIFY informing that their winfo subscriptions are active. Test2 adds test1 as a contact so he subscribes to test1's presence, then test1 receives a winfo NOTIFY requesting authorization for test2. Test1 does it sending a XCAP document to openXcap the document is correctly stored in openSer xcap table. User test2 receives a presence NOTIFY in pending state, even if user test1 publishes other presence state, the subscription state of test2 remains pending forever. If we look the data base in that moment: +------+--------------------------+------------------+----------------+---------+----------------+----------------+----------+----------------------+---------------+--------------------------------------+------------+-------------+-------------------+--------------+------------+--------+--------+---------+------------------------+------------------------+ | id | presentity_uri | watcher_username | watcher_domain | to_user | to_domain | event | event_id | to_tag | from_tag | callid | local_cseq | remote_cseq | contact | record_route | expires | status | reason | version | socket_info | local_contact | +------+--------------------------+------------------+----------------+---------+----------------+----------------+----------+----------------------+---------------+--------------------------------------+------------+-------------+-------------------+--------------+------------+--------+--------+---------+------------------------+------------------------+ | 1177 | sip:test2@Mydomain | test2 | Mydomain | test2 | Mydomain | presence.winfo | NULL | 10.2670.1209516359.7 | cvvUDerBXK1Qc | b4c2997e-64ac-122b-2780-39a48cb53b8d | 1 | 96206117 | sip:192.168.1.222 | NULL | 1209519959 | 1 | | 1 | udp:192.168.1.210:5060 | sip:192.168.1.210:5060 | +------+--------------------------+------------------+----------------+---------+----------------+----------------+----------+----------------------+---------------+--------------------------------------+------------+-------------+-------------------+--------------+------------+--------+--------+---------+------------------------+------------------------+ WATCHERS +----+--------------------------+------------------+----------------+----------+--------+--------+---------------+ | id | presentity_uri | watcher_username | watcher_domain | event | status | reason | inserted_time | +----+--------------------------+------------------+----------------+----------+--------+--------+---------------+ | 80 | sip:test1@Mydomain | test2 | Mydomain | presence | 2 | NULL | 1209516407 | +----+--------------------------+------------------+----------------+----------+--------+--------+---------------+ XCAP +-----+----------+----------------+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+----------+----------------------------------+--------+-------------+------+ | id | username | domain | doc | doc_type | etag | source | doc_uri | port | +-----+----------+----------------+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+----------+----------------------------------+--------+-------------+------+ | 190 | test2 | Mydomain | <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <resource-lists xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:resource-lists"><list name="Users"><entry uri="sip:test1@Mydomain"><display-name>test1</display-name></entry></list></resource-lists> | 4 | 8ea82eeb40e00fcf626dbe17d1961ad5 | 0 | buddies.xml | 0 | | 191 | test2 | Mydomain | <?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?><ruleset xmlns='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:common-policy' xmlns:pr='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pres-rules'><rule id='whitelist'><conditions><identity></identity></conditions><actions><pr:sub-handling>allow</pr:sub-handling></actions></rule><rule id='politeblocklist'><conditions><identity></identity></conditions><actions><pr:sub-handling>polite-block</pr:sub-handling></actions></rule><rule id='blacklist'><conditions><identity></identity></conditions><actions><pr:sub-handling>block</pr:sub-handling></actions></rule></ruleset> | 2 | 46353b3b55d23d24fd4d9c87a5ff7ba4 | 0 | index.xml | 0 | | 192 | test1 | Mydomain | <?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?><resource-lists xmlns='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:resource-lists'><list name='Users'></list></resource-lists> | 4 | f854971d48ed1a8913e20b3409a6b723 | 0 | buddies.xml | 0 | | 193 | test1 | Mydomain | <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <ruleset xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:common-policy" xmlns:pr="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pres-rules"><rule id="whitelist"><conditions><identity><one id="sip:test2@Mydomain"/></identity></conditions><actions><pr:sub-handling>allow</pr:sub-handling></actions></rule><rule id="politeblocklist"><conditions/><actions><pr:sub-handling>polite-block</pr:sub-handling></actions></rule><rule id="blacklist"><conditions/><actions><pr:sub-handling>block</pr:sub-handling></actions></rule></ruleset> | 2 | 8afbf7f0464de1273303bbea554404ff | 0 | index.xml | 0 | +-----+----------+----------------+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+----------+----------------------------------+--------+-------------+------+ We can see in 'WATCHERS' table that test2 has a pending presence subscription but as can be seen in 'XCAP' table user test1 has authorized test2 to see his presence. My thinking is that once test1 changes his authorization rule, the presence subscription should chage to active, am I right? My conclusion is that something between the presence rules authorization and the subscriptions is not working fine, or I did something wrong and I haven't noticed it. Please, I really need help with that as I have been stuck here for weeks. Thanks in advance!! Gregorio -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/OpenSER-%2B-OpenXcap-for-pres-rules%3A-no-NOTIFY-tp15… Sent from the OpenSER Users Mailing List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

16 years, 8 months

[OpenSER-Users] issue - remote sip client must re-register after failover in Openser Registrar HA config

by Naija Man

Hi friends, I am having problems setting up seamless openser registrar failover. I am trying to setup OpenSER registrar HA using 2 openser registrars v1.3.0behind a Netscaler citrix Load balancer and I cant get the failover scenario to work without re-registration of the remote sip client. I am desperately looking for tips to make this configuration work or any other ideas to achieve SIP registrar HA using OpenSER. Thanks. The setup is configured as active-passive and the 2nd OpenSER becomes active only after a Openser_1 fails and the LB fails-over to the 2nd. The 2 openser servers are SIP registrars for my voice network. REGISTRATION: remote SIP UA ---> remote firewall ---> internet ---> my firewall ---> citrix NA loadbalancer (VIP) ----> openSER_1 \---> openSER_2 1. Remote SIP client configures the LB VIP as the SIP proxy and registers 2. the citrix LB gets the registrations and forwards to the active openser (say, openser_1) 3. openser_1 stores the contact as MIP:port in the mysql database 4. openser_1 replicates the registration to openser_2 (t_replicate) OUT-GOING CALL - before fail-over remote SIP UA <--- remote firewall <--- internet <--- my firewall <--- citrix NA loadbalancer (VIP) <----> openSER_1 ^ openSER_2 | Asterisk 1. call (INVITE) is generated from asterisk and sent to LB VIP 2. the citrix LB gets the INVITE and forwards to the active openser (say, openser_1) 3. openser_1 looks-up the URI in the MySQL database, finds the MIP:port that the registration was received from the LB and forwards the INVITE to that destination. 4. the LB receives the INVITE and forwards it to the remote SIP client OUT-GOING CALL - after fail-over remote SIP UA ---x remote firewall ---x internet ---x my firewall ---x citrix NA loadbalancer (VIP) ----x openSER_1 ^ \-----< openSER_2 | Asterisk 1. call (INVITE) is generated from asterisk and sent to LB VIP 2. the citrix LB gets the INVITE and forwards to the openser now active (openser_2) 3. openser_2 looks-up the URI in the MySQL database, finds the same MIP:port of the LB that was replicated from openser_1 and forwards the INVITE to that destination. 4. the LB receives the INVITE and drops the packet without forwarding it out to the remote SIP client For the outgoing call to work: the remote sip client either has to re-register, so the registration gets passed to openser_2. OR, openser_1 is made active again. Configuration of OpenSER: REGISTRATION: # If this is a registration from the public UA, # then we store it fix_nated_contact(); # use ip address of the packet instead of the sip message force_rport(); # append rport. might not be necessary # save Registration in location table save("location"); xlog("L_DBG", "SipMsgId[$mi] Save Registration: To[$tu] Contact[$ct]\n"); append_hf("CtlRegFwd: \r\n"); # replicate the register message to the backup registrar # if I am the backup, ignore the message if(!t_replicate("sip:openser_2:5060")) { xlog("L_WARN", "SipMsgId[$mi] Fail to replicate Contact[$ct] to fail over registrar\n"); OUTGOING CALL: # Do lookup so it gets to the correct NATed destination if (!lookup("location")) { # this user has not REGISTERed or registration has expired xlog("L_INFO", "SipMsgId[$mi] Send 404-Not Found (Msg rejected because user not found)\n"); sl_send_reply("404", "Not Found"); exit; }; # keep track of reply t_on_reply("11"); if (!t_relay()) { xlog("L_DBG", "SipMsgId[$mi] Failed t_relay. Do sl_reply_error.\n"); sl_reply_error(); }; Thank you for your anticipated help. Regards, Buki A

16 years, 8 months

← Newer
1
...
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
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 March 2008