sr-users

sr-users@lists.kamailio.org

42 participants
37549 discussions

[Serusers] SER hung - Log Information?
by Ricardo Martinez 14 Apr '05

14 Apr '05

Hello list. I had been experimenting some weird behavior in my SER program. A couple of times my SER seems to be hung. For example the first time, all the REGISTER messages reaching the server were not challenged, even worst the server don't respond anything. The second time it happened with the INVITE messages. The weird thing is that the SER process were still running. I don't know what could cause this problem, but my question is : Is there a way to log information about the "internal system process" to have a clue about what is happening?. I would really appreciate any help. Thanks Ricardo Martinez.-

1 0

Re: [Serusers] Credentials with given realm not found
by Alex 14 Apr '05

14 Apr '05

Alex hi thanks for the fast reply. I tried to use other client and it's seems to work, very strange, if i am changing in my client to use other server i can see the authentication process in the radius logs, but when i swap ip to my server i can't see anything in the radius logs. BTW the other ip phone working great. thanks for help. On 4/14/05, Alex <alexandergav(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Alex hi thanks for the fast reply. > > I tried to use other client and it's seems to work, very strange, if i > am changing in my client to use other server i can see the > authentication process in the radius logs, but when i swap ip to my > server i can't see anything in the radius logs. > > BTW the other ip phone working great. > > thanks for help. > > > On 4/14/05, Alex Mack <amack(a)fhm.edu> wrote: > > Hi! > > > > SER is sending a nonce in its 401 reply. This is the challenge from the > > SER to the UA. > > The UA now has to calculate a reply implying his password and the given > > nonce. The answer has to be added in an Authorization-Header inside the > > next REGISTER. > > > > The message flow (without RADIUS messages) would look like: > > > > UA SER > > | | > > | REGISTER w/o Auth | > > |-------------------->| > > | | > > | 401 Unauthorized (with nonce) > > |<--------------------| > > | | > > | ACK | > > |-------------------->| > > | | > > | REGISTER with Auth (calculated from nonce) > > |-------------------->| > > | | > > | 200 OK | > > |<--------------------| > > | | > > > > The second register has to have an "Authorization" header, otherwise > > your client is misconfigured or misbehaving. Test it with another > > client, e.g. X-Lite (www.xten.com) > > > > Alex Mack > > > > Alex schrieb: > > > > >So Daniel like i understand the problem is my radius configuration, > > >another thing is that my ATA sending the same stuff, i mean if i will > > >change the sip server to different one where i installed freeradius > > >with ser it's working fine. > > > > > >Daniel where i can start to fix that problem.? > > > > > >Thank you very much for your time. > > > > > >On 4/14/05, Alex <alexandergav(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > >>So Daniel like i understand the problem is my radius configuration, > > >>another thing is that my ATA sending the same stuff, i mean if i will > > >>change the sip server to different one where i installed freeradius > > >>with ser it's working fine. > > >> > > >>Daniel where i can start to fix that problem.? > > >> > > >>Thank you very much for your time. > > >> > > >> > > >>On 4/14/05, Daniel-Constantin Mierla <daniel(a)voice-system.ro> wrote: > > >> > > >> > > >>>The second REGISTER (the block 3) must contains the response to the > > >>>authentication challenge carried by 401 reply (block 2). That means that > > >>>the block 3 must contain an Authorization header with authentication > > >>>credentials computed according to HTTP-Digest authentication mechanism > > >>>(RFC2617). Also, see the section 22.Usage of HTTP Authentication in SIP > > >>>RFC3261 for more about user authentication in SIP. > > >>> > > >>>Daniel > > >>> > > >>>On 04/14/05 13:16, Alex wrote: > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>>Sorry Daniel , i didn't get that, I send here 4 blocks, 1 one is the > > >>>>register request the 2 is the reply from the server, 3 is the register > > >>>>request, 4 is the reply from the server. If you can please point me to > > >>>>the problem. Because like i see the 2 register requests (1,3 blocks) > > >>>>are the same. > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>On 4/14/05, Daniel-Constantin Mierla <daniel(a)voice-system.ro> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>>As you can see, the second REGISTER does not contain the authentication > > >>>>>credentials (No Authorization header) in response to 401 reply. So, > > >>>>>either you didn't configure the phone to authenticate or the Grandstream > > >>>>>HT286 1.0.5.18 is faulty. > > >>>>> > > >>>>>Daniel > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>On 04/14/05 12:35, Alex wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>>Daniel thanks > > >>>>>>btw it's clean installation of Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS release 3 > > >>>>>>ser-08.14 , freeradius-1.2 , radiusclient-4.8 > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>i am sending ngrep port 5060 > > >>>>>>i have here 2 requests of register and the replies to register. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx - sipserverip > > >>>>>>telephoneip - ip where the call coming from > > >>>>>>Phonenumber - phone number > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>U telephoneip:10739 -> xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:5060 > > >>>>>>REGISTER sip:xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx SIP/2.0..Via: SIP/2.0/UDP > > >>>>>>telephoneip:10000;branch=z9hG4bK98514c3b052d7df6..From: "Test Alex" < > > >>>>>>sip:Phonenumber@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx;user=phone>;tag=50673f1baca1958c..To: > > >>>>>><sip:Phonenumber@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx;user=phone>..Contact: <sip > > >>>>>>:Phonenumber@telephoneip:10000;user=phone>..Call-ID: > > >>>>>>1cff1b8955b8fa5c@10.0.0.4..CSeq: 106 REGISTER..Expires: > > >>>>>>3600..User-Agent > > >>>>>>: Grandstream HT286 1.0.5.18..Max-Forwards: 70..Allow: > > >>>>>>INVITE,ACK,CANCEL,BYE,NOTIFY,REFER,OPTIONS,INFO,SUBSCRIBE..Content-Lengt > > >>>>>>h: 0.... > > >>>>>># > > >>>>>>U xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:5060 -> telephoneip:10000 > > >>>>>>SIP/2.0 401 Unauthorized..Via: SIP/2.0/UDP > > >>>>>>telephoneip:10000;branch=z9hG4bK98514c3b052d7df6..From: "Test Alex" > > >>>>>><sip:Phonenumber@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx;user=phone>;tag=50673f1baca1958c..To: > > >>>>>><sip:Phonenumber@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx;user=phone>;tag=b27e1a1d33761e85846fc9 > > >>>>>>8f5f3a7e58.f894..Call-ID: 1cff1b8955b8fa5c@10.0.0.4..CSeq: 106 > > >>>>>>REGISTER..WWW-Authenticate: Digest realm="xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx", nonc > > >>>>>>e="425e3ac34dc9509392435c11fb260f41420049c7"..Server: Sip EXpress > > >>>>>>router (0.8.14 (i386/linux))..Content-Length: 0..Warning: 392 > > >>>>>> xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:5060 "Noisy feedback tells: pid=1912 > > >>>>>>req_src_ip=telephoneip req_src_port=10739 in_uri=sip:xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx > > >>>>>>out_uri=sip:xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx via_cnt==1".... > > >>>>>># > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>U telephoneip:10740 -> xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:5060 > > >>>>>>REGISTER sip:xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx SIP/2.0..Via: SIP/2.0/UDP > > >>>>>>telephoneip:10000;branch=z9hG4bK98514c3b052d7df6..From: "Test Alex" < > > >>>>>>sip:Phonenumber@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx;user=phone>;tag=50673f1baca1958c..To: > > >>>>>><sip:Phonenumber@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx;user=phone>..Contact: <sip > > >>>>>>:Phonenumber@telephoneip:10000;user=phone>..Call-ID: > > >>>>>>1cff1b8955b8fa5c@10.0.0.4..CSeq: 106 REGISTER..Expires: > > >>>>>>3600..User-Agent > > >>>>>>: Grandstream HT286 1.0.5.18..Max-Forwards: 70..Allow: > > >>>>>>INVITE,ACK,CANCEL,BYE,NOTIFY,REFER,OPTIONS,INFO,SUBSCRIBE..Content-Lengt > > >>>>>>h: 0.... > > >>>>>># > > >>>>>>U xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:5060 -> telephoneip:10000 > > >>>>>>SIP/2.0 401 Unauthorized..Via: SIP/2.0/UDP > > >>>>>>telephoneip:10000;branch=z9hG4bK98514c3b052d7df6..From: "Test Alex" > > >>>>>><sip:Phonenumber@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx;user=phone>;tag=50673f1baca1958c..To: > > >>>>>><sip:Phonenumber@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx;user=phone>;tag=b27e1a1d33761e85846fc9 > > >>>>>>8f5f3a7e58.f894..Call-ID: 1cff1b8955b8fa5c@10.0.0.4..CSeq: 106 > > >>>>>>REGISTER..WWW-Authenticate: Digest realm="xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx", nonc > > >>>>>>e="425e3acb812b5b2e8aa023e3fcffc618dc4cf661"..Server: Sip EXpress > > >>>>>>router (0.8.14 (i386/linux))..Content-Length: 0..Warning: 392 > > >>>>>> xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:5060 "Noisy feedback tells: pid=1885 > > >>>>>>req_src_ip=telephoneip req_src_port=10740 in_uri=sip:xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx > > >>>>>>out_uri=sip:xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx via_cnt==1".... > > >>>>>># > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>tell me if you need something else. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>On 4/14/05, Daniel-Constantin Mierla <daniel(a)voice-system.ro> wrote: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>>Could you post the network dump with REGISTER/401/REGISTER messages? I > > >>>>>>>will take a look to see if something is wrong. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>On 04/14/05 12:16, Alex wrote: > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>Digest realm is the same for the register requests. > > >>>>>>>>furthermore the realm in To tag is correct. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>Did you mean To URI instead of To tag? > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>Daniel > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>what else it can be. > > >>>>>>>>Thanks for any help. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>On 4/14/05, Daniel-Constantin Mierla <daniel(a)voice-system.ro> wrote: > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>Watch the network traffic (ngrep or ethereal on port 5060) and check the > > >>>>>>>>>realm from 401 is the same as the one from next REGISTER. Also, when > > >>>>>>>>>you use the empty realm parameter to radius_ww_authorize() and > > >>>>>>>>>www_challenge(), the realm is taken from To URI. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>Daniel > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>On 04/14/05 08:08, Alex wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>Hi guys maybe someone can find the problem, i still can't see anything > > >>>>>>>>>>going to radius authentication. (the radius logs are empty) > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>the register request is coming but it's not going to authenticate > > >>>>>>>>>>through the radius. > > >>>>>>>>>>Any help will be appreciated. > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>here is the debug from ser : > > >>>>>>>>>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >>>>>>>>>>14(1036) parse_headers: flags=-1 > > >>>>>>>>>>14(1036) check_via_address(62.219.158.191, 62.219.158.191, 1) > > >>>>>>>>>>14(1036) DEBUG:destroy_avp_list: destroing list (nil) > > >>>>>>>>>>14(1036) receive_msg: cleaning up > > >>>>>>>>>>9(1012) SIP Request: > > >>>>>>>>>>9(1012) method: <REGISTER> > > >>>>>>>>>>9(1012) uri: <sip:xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx> > > >>>>>>>>>>9(1012) version: <SIP/2.0> > > >>>>>>>>>>9(1012) parse_headers: flags=1 > > >>>>>>>>>>9(1012) Found param type 232, <branch> = <z9hG4bKfc5751413c832e6d>; state=16 > > >>>>>>>>>>9(1012) end of header reached, state=5 > > >>>>>>>>>>9(1012) parse_headers: Via found, flags=1 > > >>>>>>>>>>9(1012) parse_headers: this is the first via > > >>>>>>>>>>9(1012) After parse_msg... > > >>>>>>>>>>9(1012) preparing to run routing scripts... > > >>>>>>>>>>9(1012) REGISTER: Authenticating user > > >>>>>>>>>>9(1012) parse_headers: flags=4 > > >>>>>>>>>>9(1012) end of header reached, state=9 > > >>>>>>>>>>9(1012) DEBUG: get_hdr_field: <To> [45]; > > >>>>>>>>>>uri=[sip:phonenumber@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx;user=phone] > > >>>>>>>>>>9(1012) DEBUG: to body [<sip:phonenumber@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx;user=phone> > > >>>>>>>>>>] > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>9(1012) parse_headers: flags=4096 > > >>>>>>>>>>9(1012) get_hdr_field: cseq <CSeq>: <103> <REGISTER> > > >>>>>>>>>>9(1012) DEBUG: get_hdr_body : content_length=0 > > >>>>>>>>>>9(1012) found end of header > > >>>>>>>>>>9(1012) pre_auth(): Credentials with given realm not found > > >>>>>>>>>>9(1012) REGISTER: challenging user > > >>>>>>>>>>9(1012) build_auth_hf(): 'WWW-Authenticate: Digest > > >>>>>>>>>>realm="xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx", > > >>>>>>>>>>nonce="425e063022afc1142ed6730d46da41692ff3ed57" > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>_______________________________________________ > > >>>>>>>>>>Serusers mailing list > > >>>>>>>>>>serusers(a)lists.iptel.org > > >>>>>>>>>>http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > > >Serusers mailing list > > >serusers(a)lists.iptel.org > > >http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

1 0

Re: [Serusers] Load Balancing via UltraMonkey/ldirectord
by Darren Sessions 14 Apr '05

14 Apr '05

Why not use a heartbeat setup with a shared IP address? You could replicate registration data on the unique ip addresses on each server using SER's replication, and use a shared IP address to talk to the end points (which also eliminates problems with symmetric nats as they're always talking to the same IP address). It would be a simple matter to use SIPsak to monitor the SIP responsiveness, and shell script/perl script to monitor the actual processes on each server. If anything went south, you could initiate failover of the shared ip address. Seems like it'd be a lot less expensive than an F5 setup. Just a thought.. - Darren On 4/13/05 6:00 AM, "serusers-request(a)lists.iptel.org" <serusers-request(a)lists.iptel.org> wrote: > Message: 5 > Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 06:55:00 +0200 > From: "Greger V. Teigre" <greger(a)teigre.com> > Subject: Re: [Serusers] Load Balancing via UltraMonkey/ldirectord > To: "Matt Schulte" <mschulte(a)netlogic.net>, <serusers(a)lists.iptel.org> > Message-ID: <009c01c53fe4$f33e31c0$6400a8c0@MrMaster> > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; > reply-type=original > > So, you found the budget? Or was the pain just big enough... > Let's see what we can do. It will take some time, I assume, so meanwhile... > g-) > Matt Schulte wrote: >> Heheh, we may actually test one of those F5network switches...i f we >> don't come up with a fairly painless, bugfree, and most importantly >> supportable solution. :-) I cannot code therefore I would be useless, >> but I can safely say learning C is on my to-do list. We may however be >> willing to contribute to a bounty, at the very least I'd be more than >> happy to test :D >> >> Matt >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Greger V. Teigre [mailto:greger@teigre.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 5:29 AM >> To: Matt Schulte; serusers(a)lists.iptel.org >> Subject: Re: [Serusers] Load Balancing via UltraMonkey/ldirectord >> >> >> :-) Yes, layer 7 switch is of course nice. But then again, you need to >> make >> sure that you can price your services where people will buy them... >> >> I wonder whether it is possible to gather some people interested in >> this and >> get something started on the development side. AFAIK, LVS struggles >> with >> >> other UDP services too, so a ipvs UDP content analyzer would probably >> be of >> interest. I looked at the source code and I think the most difficult >> thing >> would be to extend the ipvs framework to allow a module to peak into >> the >> >> packet (and not only the header). I don't know what kind of >> performance penalties you get either. >> >> I have seen several people being willing to sponsor development. We >> could >> hire somebody at http://www.rentacoder.com/ ;-) >> g-) >> >> Matt Schulte wrote: >>> Yah I noticed the other post after I posted mine, I don't see how it >>> would easily be possible to address the sticky issue. It would >>> require >> >>> making a SIP aware proxy of sorts, which is a bit out of my >>> abilities. >> >>> Has anyone been able to address this issue? Of course a layer7 switch >>> would do wonders and eliminate the need for all this, but who has >>> that >> >>> money laying around :D >>> >>> I've done a little research (google) and noticed people mentioning it >>> when talking about LVS, one guy said he was going to write a module >>> but posted nothing more. That would be pretty slick. >>> >>> Matt >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Greger V. Teigre [mailto:greger@teigre.com] >>> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 3:04 AM >>> To: Matt Schulte; serusers(a)lists.iptel.org >>> Subject: Re: [Serusers] Load Balancing via UltraMonkey/ldirectord >>> >>> >>> If you see another thread (using the rather intuitive subject: Re: >>> [Serusers] more usrloc synchronization), you will see discussions on >>> using LVS in general. AFAIK, which high availability solution to use >>> for LVS, is >>> more based on your personal preferences, UltraMonkey is probably a >>> safe choice. Anyway, you will need to address the "stickiness" >>> issue. g-) >>> >>> Matt Schulte wrote: >>>> Has anyone attempted to load balance SER using >>>> Ultramonkey/ldirectord? >>> >>>> I've noticed all it does is pretty much NAT and send requests >>>> accordingly, the trick I guess would be the NAT part. If the SIP >>>> headers = myself, would there really be any issues? One problem I >>>> can >> >>>> foresee is the possibility that loose routing would hit the wrong >>>> server. Just wanted to ask around before I wasted time trying it out >>>> for myself :-) Thanks >>>> >>>> Matt >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Serusers mailing list >>>> serusers(a)lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers

2 1

Re: LVS, load balancing, and stickness was ==> Re: [Serusers] more usrloc synchronization
by Tina 14 Apr '05

14 Apr '05

As well as I am. "Greger V. Teigre" <greger(a)teigre.com> wrote:> The only bright point I can offer here is that I'm 100% certain that > the LVS source code has __not__ been modified. Which really makes me annoyed, because I cannot right now see any other obvious path (i.e. simpler). g-) > > Sorry, > Paul > > > On Apr 11, 2005 4:46 AM, Greger V. Teigre <greger(a)teigre.com> wrote: > After my last email, I looked at ktcpvs and realized I ignored a > couple of things: ktcpvs only supports tcp (http is obviously > tcp-based, but I thought it supported udp for other protocols). I > don't know how much work implementing udp would be. > Here is a discussion of SIP and LVS that I found useful (though > not encouraging). > http://www.austintek.com/LVS/LVS-HOWTO/HOWTO/LVS-HOWTO.services_that_dont_w… > > Paul: I'm starting to get really curious on the standard LVS > components used for your stickiness! I'm not aware (also after > searching now) of an LVS balancing mechanism that allows correct > stickness on SIP udp...! > And I found other too who are looking for it: > http://archive.linuxvirtualserver.org/html/lvs-users/2005-02/msg00251.html > > My understanding is that ipvs must be extended (according to the > developer) with a call-id based scheduler and that this work has > several people willing to fund development, but that this has not(?) > started yet. The problem is that ipvs is based on ip header analysis > and extending the hashing algorithms to also include payload-based > analysis is not straight-forward. > g-) --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!

3 2

[Serusers] Help? works but I get this error
by Paul Dracevich 14 Apr '05

14 Apr '05

Warning: fopen("/tmp/ser_fifo", "w") - Permission denied in /var/www/html/serweb/functions.php Regards Paul Dracevich Wireless Technology Consultant Wayby Group Mobile +64 29 638 9675 Phone +64 9 623 2143 Fax +64 9 623 1380 email paul(a)vnet.cc website www.vnet.cc <file:///C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\paul\Application%20Data\Microsoft \Signatures\www.vnet.cc> "the freedom to communicate is the right of every individual in the 21st century" "Intellectual Property protection is the key to the Knowledge Economy" This email was sent to you via YOUtopia ... it's all about YOU. The information contained in this email and any attachments is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient then you must not use, disseminate, distribute or copy any information contained in this email or any attachments. If you have received this email in error, please contact us immediately and delete this email. Thank you.

4 3

[Serusers] SER Radius authentication without domain
by davor jovanovic 14 Apr '05

14 Apr '05

Hi, I have a problem with radius authentication, my SER sends username@mydomain, but I only need authentication by username. So, instead of sending "davor" to my radius, SER sends "davor@mydomain" and my radius doesn't authenticate me. Is it possible to send authentication request without domain part? Someone has already post this kind of question but no answer was given. Best Regards Davor

2 1

Re: [Serusers] sending bye using sipsak [onsip.org]
by Pavel Siderov 14 Apr '05

14 Apr '05

Hi Paul, I just tried your suggestion but still with no success. Here is my bye.txt BYE sip:35923456@1.2.3.4 SIP/2.0 From: <sip:166279@5.6.7.8>;tag=95061277 To: <sip:35928229525@1.2.3.4>;tag=as414565bd Contact: sip:166279@1.2.3.4;user=phone Call-ID: BF5C0E09-B35D-4E5D-BB02-3572C6C2D2C8(a)192.168.2.111 CSeq: 100 BYE Max-Forwards: 16 Content-Length: 0 Thanks you very much for your help :) Regards, Pavel ----- Original Message ----- From: Java Rockx To: Pavel Siderov Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 9:21 PM Subject: Re: [Serusers] sending bye using sipsak [onsip.org] Then the only thing I can think of is that you may have to include the <from> and <to> headers including the from_tag and to_tag. I guess you're just dealing with a SIP devices that looks at all these to match transactions. You should just be able to plug these items to the BYE message template file. Regards, Paul On 4/13/05, Pavel Siderov <pi(a)hostmates.com> wrote: I've tested this lots of times ... and I think that the Call-ID is correctly copied from the database. Thanks, Pavel ----- Original Message ----- From: Java Rockx To: Pavel Siderov Cc: serusers(a)lists.iptel.org Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 5:45 PM Subject: Re: [Serusers] sending bye using sipsak [onsip.org] You'll have to ^C sipsak to stop it since it is very unlikely that the destination you're sending to will reply nicely. If the call doesn't stop then you may have the wrong Call-ID Regards, Paul On 4/13/05, Pavel Siderov <pi(a)hostmates.com> wrote: Thanks Paul. Now I got sipsak -f bye.txt -s sip:1.2.3.4 ** give up retransmissioning.... And the call continued :( Regards, Pavel ----- Original Message ----- From: Java Rockx To: Pavel Siderov Cc: serusers(a)lists.iptel.org Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 4:29 PM Subject: Re: [Serusers] sending bye using sipsak [onsip.org] Your sipsak command should be sipsak -f bye.txt -s sip:1.2.3.4 Regards, Paul

2 1

[Serusers] problems starting serweb
by Llanos Serna García-Conde 14 Apr '05

14 Apr '05

2 1

[Serusers] Credentials with given realm not found
by Alex 14 Apr '05

14 Apr '05

Hi guys maybe someone can find the problem, i still can't see anything going to radius authentication. (the radius logs are empty) the register request is coming but it's not going to authenticate through the radius. Any help will be appreciated. here is the debug from ser : --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14(1036) parse_headers: flags=-1 14(1036) check_via_address(62.219.158.191, 62.219.158.191, 1) 14(1036) DEBUG:destroy_avp_list: destroing list (nil) 14(1036) receive_msg: cleaning up 9(1012) SIP Request: 9(1012) method: <REGISTER> 9(1012) uri: <sip:xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx> 9(1012) version: <SIP/2.0> 9(1012) parse_headers: flags=1 9(1012) Found param type 232, <branch> = <z9hG4bKfc5751413c832e6d>; state=16 9(1012) end of header reached, state=5 9(1012) parse_headers: Via found, flags=1 9(1012) parse_headers: this is the first via 9(1012) After parse_msg... 9(1012) preparing to run routing scripts... 9(1012) REGISTER: Authenticating user 9(1012) parse_headers: flags=4 9(1012) end of header reached, state=9 9(1012) DEBUG: get_hdr_field: <To> [45]; uri=[sip:phonenumber@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx;user=phone] 9(1012) DEBUG: to body [<sip:phonenumber@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx;user=phone> ] 9(1012) parse_headers: flags=4096 9(1012) get_hdr_field: cseq <CSeq>: <103> <REGISTER> 9(1012) DEBUG: get_hdr_body : content_length=0 9(1012) found end of header 9(1012) pre_auth(): Credentials with given realm not found 9(1012) REGISTER: challenging user 9(1012) build_auth_hf(): 'WWW-Authenticate: Digest realm="xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx", nonce="425e063022afc1142ed6730d46da41692ff3ed57"

2 7

[Serusers] flatstore
by Steve Blair 14 Apr '05

14 Apr '05

Anyone get the flatstore module to actually log anything to a file? If so any config notes beside the ones already posted would be helpful. Thanks,Steve -- ISC Network Engineering The University of Pennsylvania 3401 Walnut Street, Suite 221A Philadelphia, PA 19104 voice: 215-573-8396 215-746-8001 fax: 215-898-9348 sip:blairs@upenn.edu

1 0

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