sr-users

sr-users@lists.kamailio.org

37 participants
37547 discussions

Start a nNew thread

[Serusers] Change in the default log file
by Daniel Perez 23 Jan '03

23 Jan '03

Is there any way to change the defaul log file to a special SER.log file ????? Daniel

4 3

Fwd: [Serusers] Multiple potential memory leaks in ser
by Jiri Kuthan 23 Jan '03

23 Jan '03

Maxim, Thank you very much for your report. I'm not the code owner who has the last word, but I agree there is a memory leak. It seems to me that insert_new_lump family is ok as long as the calling functions care to free their lump buffers on failure -- that's where the leak lives. Which imho happens at few places on CVS: +insert_new_lump_before - save_ruri in rr/loose.c - textops/append_hf_helper.c - (on contrary, it is ok in maxfwd/add_maxfwd_header, rr functions calling insert_RR, and msg_translator.c) +insert_new_lump_after - search_append_f in textops.c - replace_f in textops.c - (ok in build_req_buf...) The memory leak is unlikely to occur, as it is triggered by lack of private memory which (unlike shmem) hardly gets exhausted -- so operation is fortunately not affected. It will be fixed in the next release. -Jiri ps -- I swear on cscope :) >Folks, > >I've noticed that there are multiple potential memory leaks in SER. >The problem is that if a insert_new_lump*() function returns a NULL >for some reason (currently the only condition is memory allocation >error), it doesn't free the memory buffer passed to it and most of >the code doesn't care to deallocate that buffer after NULL is returned. >It could be easily fixed and probably needs to before the next version >is released. > >Thanks! > >-Maxim >_______________________________________________ >Serusers mailing list >serusers(a)lists.iptel.org >http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers -- Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/

2 1

[Serusers] Question on gateway routing through UA proxy
by John Todd 22 Jan '03

22 Jan '03

Goal: To learn about ser in a "non-critical" and very small PBX-like environment so as to be able to understand nuances of the system in a production environment at a later date at various firms whose owners who have expressed to me a high degree of interest in SIP call routing for larger enterprise and CLEC implementations. Sub-Goal: to make all calls into and out of my house routed via IP to alternate destinations based on ser routing configuration. I have subscribed to a long-distance plan via "iconnecthere.com", I have a PRI gateway configured at a remote location (for calls into two area codes only) and my plan is to have a Cisco 2610 with FXO card for terminating my "local" phone line. My house phones are all Cisco ATA-186 devices. Based on called number, my calls will be sent to the iconnecthere.com SIP service, the Cisco PRI gateway, or the Cisco 2610 single-line gateway. Calls will also be routed appropriately based on number called on an inbound basis from any of those three gateway systems (PRI, 2610, or iconnecthere.com) Progress: I have phone-to-phone calling working well, and I have phone-to-PRI gateway calling working well in both directions. I have not yet received the 2610, so I do not have the single-line analog gateway running, but I don't expect any issues with that system, as I understand the Cisco implementation of inbound/outbound VOIP sessions. Problem: My "iconnecthere.com" account is a username/password protected account which (of course) requires a UA at my side of the connection. To forward calls from the various phones in the house, I would need to have something re-write my username/password requests on the fly when they are sent out to the iconnecthere.com SIP proxies/gateways. My first assumption is that I'll need a (sigh) B2BUA to act as a gateway, running (for convenience) on the same UNIX platform as ser. After thinking about it for a while, I am uncertain if that is required, but at this point I can't determine what I need to do. I would appreciate hints on: a) Wether I need a B2BUA at all, and if not, what config options should I be looking at in ser? b) If I do need a B2BUA, what would you recommend? I'm using OpenBSD as my platform, and (personally) I'd like to stay away from Java for the moment. Continuing discussion: I could see this as a fairly useful toolkit trick for a small business who wants to replace their phone switch with SER or ser-like systems. If you've got an office with 10 people, it may make economic sense to simply get "generic" accounts with a SIP long distance gateway provider like iconnecthere.com (there are others) and allocate each of those accounts to individuals in the organization. This is not a solution for a large-scale operation for the various reasons outlined in the http://www.iptel.org/info/trends/#b2bua texts, but the number of small-scale shops out there is very large and a simply understood package (and simply billed) is what would be desired for many places who still use under ~10 analog lines for outbound dialing from their PBX. Any outbound calls to certain prefixes would always be pushed through a specific account for LD calling. Additionally, inbound calling through a similar service would have to also come in via the same mechanism, with a REGISTER request being sent by the B2BUA and all subsequent calls being routed through the SER proxy. PS: I'd appreciate any open-source hints on how to get an ATA-186 (v2.15) running behind NAT with ser on the "outside" of the NAT, without statically configuring the "NAT" address on the ATA-186 every time the outside address changes. Lots of keyword matches found on Google, but very few clues to be scraped from the resulting documents as to "how" do it from the server side. JT

3 6

[Serusers] Too much shared memory demanded: 33554432
by NIBLE 21 Jan '03

21 Jan '03

Greetings to all and happy new year I'm in the process of installing ser 0.8.10 on Linux (intel) and when I run Too much shared memory the "ser"executable I receive the following error message "Too much shared memory demanded: 33554432" When I turn the debug option on I receive the following: 0(4019) WARNING: hash function optimized for 1024 entries 0(4019) WARNING: use of 65536 entries may lead to unflat distribution 0(4019) ERROR: shm_mem_init: could not attach shared memory segment: Invalid argument 0(4019) could not initialize shared memory pool, exiting... Too much shared memory demanded: 33554432 Any ideas? Thanks __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com

2 1

[Serusers] sip server
by geetha shree 21 Jan '03

21 Jan '03

Dear Sir/Madam, We are developing a sip stack. We wanted to know whether you can provide any sip server for testing our stack. We also wanted to know the procedures invloved in it. Thanks in advance Geetha Catch all the cricket action. Download Yahoo! Score tracker

3 2

[Serusers] Troubles using b2bua as a accounting and call duration limiting module for SER router
by Maxim Sobolev 21 Jan '03

21 Jan '03

Dear Sirs, I am having some strange problems when trying to use b2bua for accounting and call duration limiting with SER proxy server. The idea is simple: since the SER can route SIP messages depending on their source address, we can force incoming SIP messages to be passed to B2BUA for accounting purposes first, and after the same request re-enters the proxy from B2BUA pass it to the final destination. Call flow looks like the following: ----- |UA2| ----- ^ | |4 | ----- 3 ------- ----- 1 | |<-----------| | |UA1|---->|SER| 2 |B2BUA| ----- | |----------->| | ----- ------- For some reason, it doesn't work in such configuration. The problem is that B2BUA's UAC keeps resending `200 OK' replies ingnoring ACKs it receives from UA2 until timeout hits, after which it considers the call dead, despite the fact that both UA1 and UA2 think that the call is established. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that it sends to and receives messages from the same host (SER), but I don't think that this should be a problem, since those two call legs have different call id's, so that b2bua should be able to distinguish between them easily. Attached please find tcpdump logs of one such session, here 192.168.1.1 is UA1 (originating), 192.168.0.9 is UA2, 192.168.1.100 is the host running both SER and B2BUA (the former uses port 5060, while the latter - 5065). There are two files: ser-b2bua.log is the log of udp exchange between SER and B2BUA and ser-ua1ua2.log - log of exchange between SER and UA1/UA2. Any ideas are appreciated. Thanks! -Maxim

3 7

Re: [Serusers] Rewriting URI in the Contact field
by Maxim Sobolev 20 Jan '03

20 Jan '03

On Mon, Jan 20, 2003 at 03:22:33PM +0100, Jiri Kuthan wrote: > At 09:53 PM 1/13/2003, you wrote: > >Attached please find the patch, which implements t_on_positive() > >approach. Now my config looks like the following and everything now > >works as expected: > > thanks for the patch -- I will try to integrate it as I move ahead > with other changes to TM. Does your nathelper module work now? Attached please find more fresh patch with several bugs smashed. It is probably the last one on this topic, because it works reasonably well and we now have moved to adjusting b2bua for our needs (mostly radius auth/acc). In addition to nathelper module, this patch implements rport support as specified in the correstponding IETF draft. Thanks! -Maxim

2 1

[Serusers] Multiple potential memory leaks in ser
by Maxim Sobolev 20 Jan '03

20 Jan '03

Folks, I've noticed that there are multiple potential memory leaks in SER. The problem is that if a insert_new_lump*() function returns a NULL for some reason (currently the only condition is memory allocation error), it doesn't free the memory buffer passed to it and most of the code doesn't care to deallocate that buffer after NULL is returned. It could be easily fixed and probably needs to before the next version is released. Thanks! -Maxim

1 0

RE: [Serusers] [RFC] ideas about new dialog module
by Schliesser, Benson 20 Jan '03

20 Jan '03

I'm thinking that the 'forceful termination' should have options for redirection, i.e. to an announcements (or other media) server, etc. Is this in line with your thoughts? -Benson > -----Original Message----- > From: Maxim Sobolev [mailto:sobomax@portaone.com] > Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 3:37 PM > To: serusers(a)lists.iptel.org; kapitan(a)portaone.com > Subject: [Serusers] [RFC] ideas about new dialog module > > > Hi, > > I am thinking about writing a new module for SER, which will track SIP > dialogs and will serve as an abstraction layer for other modules, much > like the tm module now. We need such module for 2 reasons: > > 1. Call accounting. Our billing engine is based on the assumption that > a node provides accounting information for completed calls, not for > individual transactions. It is easier for us to extend proxy with > similar features than to modify billing engine to do transaction > matching. > > 2. Debit card application. Currently, there is no way to use SER for > debit card applications, where it is necessary to set the maximum > duration of the call and terminate it forcefully if that duration is > exceeded. > > The raw idea is as follows: > > - the module will register callbacks with tm.register_tmcb(), probably > TMCB_REQUEST_IN and TMCB_REPLY_IN ones and will match INVITEs to BYEs > keeping information about the state of ongoing sessions in the shared > memory. > > - the module will provide interested modules with ability to register > several callbacks, i.e. on dialog creation/teardown and yet another > callback on dialog timeouts (more about that below). > > - the module will provide utility functions for forceful termination > of any ongoing dialog. > > - when invoking dialog creation callback function, the module will > give the function opportunity to install a timer on that dialog, so > that if the dialog is still active after timer expires, then some > action is performed. For example, in the debit card applications, in > such case the accounting module can decide to forcefully terminate a > dialog. > > What do you think? > > -Maxim > _______________________________________________ > Serusers mailing list > serusers(a)lists.iptel.org > http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers >

2 1

[Serusers] [RFC] ideas about new dialog module
by Maxim Sobolev 20 Jan '03

20 Jan '03

Hi, I am thinking about writing a new module for SER, which will track SIP dialogs and will serve as an abstraction layer for other modules, much like the tm module now. We need such module for 2 reasons: 1. Call accounting. Our billing engine is based on the assumption that a node provides accounting information for completed calls, not for individual transactions. It is easier for us to extend proxy with similar features than to modify billing engine to do transaction matching. 2. Debit card application. Currently, there is no way to use SER for debit card applications, where it is necessary to set the maximum duration of the call and terminate it forcefully if that duration is exceeded. The raw idea is as follows: - the module will register callbacks with tm.register_tmcb(), probably TMCB_REQUEST_IN and TMCB_REPLY_IN ones and will match INVITEs to BYEs keeping information about the state of ongoing sessions in the shared memory. - the module will provide interested modules with ability to register several callbacks, i.e. on dialog creation/teardown and yet another callback on dialog timeouts (more about that below). - the module will provide utility functions for forceful termination of any ongoing dialog. - when invoking dialog creation callback function, the module will give the function opportunity to install a timer on that dialog, so that if the dialog is still active after timer expires, then some action is performed. For example, in the debit card applications, in such case the accounting module can decide to forcefully terminate a dialog. What do you think? -Maxim

3 4

Jump to page:

2025

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