Dear sir:
I write to ask if the kamailio support multi-domain. for example, A UA belong to domain b get into domain a, could it work as well as in domain b?
If so, how to configure it? Thank you.
According to the Kamailio 1.5.x docs, force_rtp_proxy() is deprecated
and rtpproxy_offer() and rtpproxy_answer() should be used instead.
Does that mean unforce_rtp_proxy() is also deprecated? If so, how
should calls be cleaned up once a BYE is received? Is the orthodox
approach to simply let the streams time out on their own, or should
unforce_rtp_proxy() still be used here? What about when a CANCEL is
received while the dialog is an early state -- should
unforce_rtp_proxy() be used there too?
Thanks!
--
Alex Balashov
Evariste Systems
Web : http://www.evaristesys.com/
Tel : (+1) (678) 954-0670
Direct : (+1) (678) 954-0671
Mobile : (+1) (678) 237-1775
A telco equipment vendor has pointed out that when
an ACK message pass via our SER servers, a Via: header
is added which is normal, but frequently the branch value
in that Via: header is "0". As in:
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 10.133.90.x;branch=0
This violates RFC 3261 for being zero and for not being
"unique across time and space". (8.1.1.7, page 38).
This is showing up in over 50% of the ACK messages
being passed through in just one direction.
When not equal to zero, the value is like this:
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 10.133.90.x;branch=z9hG4bK095a.b27ac307.0
We don't see branch=0 appearing in any other SIP
message type, just ACKs.
Is anybody else seeing this and perhaps have a fix?
The telco equipment vendor doesn't think it is confusing
their equipment, but as it is out spec they want
to eliminate it as a source of trouble.
The calls are originating in a variety of types
of equipment including Acme, Sonus, Asterisk, etc.
This is the Via: added by SER, any already present
when we got the call are non-zero and look fine.
We are running ser-2.0.0-rc1.
A sample:
ACK sip:6x0x9x0x0x;npdi=yes;rn=6x0x6x9x7x@10.133.0.x:5060 SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 10.1x3.9x.1x;branch=0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 7x.1x.1x3.1x0:5060;branch=z9hG4bK02Bd8a36ba5a45d76d6
From: <sip:Restricted@7x.1x.1x3.1x0>;tag=gK020a4ae7
To: <sip:6103900202@2x8.3x.2x1.7x>;tag=000a0285+1+11540020+75d5539b
Call-ID: 2097284613_75974428(a)7x.1x.1x3.1x0
CSeq: 15498 ACK
Max-Forwards: 16
Content-Length: 0
Thanks in advance.
Hello,
within K project, we had from time to time an IRC meeting for short term
planning. IMO it is the time for next one since probably we need at
least a kamailio 1.5.2 release. The place was the irc channel #kamailio
on freenode.net, now we can host it on #sip-router. Presence is not
mandatory and anyone is welcome to join.
From the perspective of K project, here are the topics I would like to
approach:
- kamailio 1.5.2 - show-stoppers, when?
- shall we do another branch 1.4-based release
- kamailio 3.0
- current status
- what is missing, what can be worked-around, prioritizing tasks...
- documentation - migration tutorials
- release roadmap
For sip router:
- logistics: anything missing for project now?
- what can be done to make adoption easier (new tools, etc...)
- suggestions for future development
I propose Tuesday, July 7, 2009, we can adjust to fit the best for the
people that want to attend. I started a wiki page, feel free to add there:
https://sip-router.org/wiki/devel/irc-meetings/2009-07-07
Cheers,
Daniel
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
http://www.asipto.com/
(apologies if you receive multiple copies of this mail)
Hello,
the 111 version of SEMS, the SIP Express Media Server, is now available
for download at
http://ftp.iptel.org/pub/sems/1.1/1.1.1/http://ftp.iptel.org/pub/sems/1.1/1.1.1/src/sems-1.1.1.tar.gz
4a6422d09ddadaf9eacd8cae8f0848d5 sems-1.1.1.tar.gz
Debian packages for lenny64 are available in the repository:
deb http://ftp.iptel.org/pub/sems/debian lenny free
deb-src http://ftp.iptel.org/pub/sems/debian lenny free
and etch64 in http://ftp.iptel.org/pub/sems/1.1/1.1.1/packages .
This is a bugfix release in the 1.1 branch which accumulates fixes for
bugs found in 1.1.0 so far. Specifically, this is
- fixed Via HF missing the port number in ACK to 200 reply
- do not try to scale too short RTP packets
- fixed initialization of SSL - caused random crashing of xmlrpc server
- fix size() for AmArg struct type
- authenticate on both 401 and 407 reply in click2dial
- fixed ssl build dependency for DIAMETER client in deb
Many Thanks to everyone who contributed with bug reporting and fixes.
More information, documentation etc about SEMS can be found at its
homepage: http://iptel.org/sems
Best Regards
Stefan Sayer
--
Stefan Sayer
VoIP Services
stefan.sayer(a)iptego.com
www.iptego.com
IPTEGO GmbH
Wittenbergplatz 1
10789 Berlin
Germany
Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, HRB 101010
Geschaeftsfuehrer: Alexander Hoffmann
According to the 1.5.x docs, force_rtp_proxy() is deprecated and
rtpproxy_offer() and rtpproxy_answer() should be used instead.
Does that mean unforce_rtp_proxy() is also deprecated? If so, how
should calls be cleaned up once a BYE is received? Is the orthodox
approach to simply let the streams time out on their own, or should
unforce_rtp_proxy() still be used here? What about when a CANCEL is
received while the dialog is an early state -- should
unforce_rtp_proxy() be used there too?
Thanks!
--
Alex Balashov
Evariste Systems
Web : http://www.evaristesys.com/
Tel : (+1) (678) 954-0670
Direct : (+1) (678) 954-0671
Mobile : (+1) (678) 237-1775
I am not clear on what exactly the SIP-Router project is, nor how it
will affect me? Is Kamailio eventually being replaced with SIP-Router
once all the functionalities have been rolled in? Will my entire
configuration script need to be reworked to eventually operate with
this new platform? Can anyone explain to me why this merge is
happening so soon after Kamailio split with OpenSIPS? All this
turmoil feels very destructive to me.
Hi Guys,
I was wondering how can I implement a proxy with Kamailio that can manage
privacy and normalization of the calling party.
In an INVITE message I can get the calling party name (or number) in several
places:
1. From Header
2. Remote-Party ID
3. P-Asserted-Identity
4. P-Preferred-Identity
How should I act in order to normalize or block the Calling Party to be
passed to subsequent hops?
AFAIK I can change the From Header as long as the tag isn't modified. Is
this really true?
What about RPID or PAI? Should I Change the aliases there as well?
Thanks in advance to all!
Uriel