Hi all
I'm an Italian Student
and I'm working on CPL module.
I've seen on the IPTEL site a WEB page with the CPL composer.
Where could I download CPL composer software for the creation of the CPL scripts?
Thanks a lot
Paolo
HI,
i am using redhat with kernel 2.4.18-3 and grub loader 0.91.
while using SIP server, to get a detailed error log i changed some options in serv.conf file as given by server user guide.
-------------------------------------
ser logs -- with default settings few logs are printed to syslog facility which typically dumps them to /var/log/messages. To enable detailed logs dumped to stderr, apply the following configuration options: debug=8, log_stderror=yes, fork=no.
---------------------------------------
but after i restarted my machine it is getting hanged at boot time as it tries to start ser: while booting up somewhere at the end of booting process. and stops there. probably waiting for some response and because of that stopped system from booting normally.
any idea why it is so .
regards,
Geetha
--
********************************************************************
eRiva provides IT Solutions & Services to companies worldwide.
Our State of the Art Research & Development Centers provides
Innovative Solutions to global customers.
********************************************************************
--
Hello all
We have set up an environment that includes one jabberclient and one sip (msn) client.
Now, the problem.
Registration is no problem, everything is working fine and we se the "online" on both sides.
The thing now is that our sip-client can send one or several mesages to the jabbberclient but as soon as the jabberclient
send a respond, the connection is broken.
When trying to send a msg from sip to jabber the sip-client just says:
"The following message could not be delivered to all recipients:"
Etherreal says nothing is happening, the client doesn't even try to send something out, not even to DNS or Ser.
jabber to sip is no problem, and sip to jabber is no problem as long as you haven't send a msg from jabber to sip. (puh)
Do you have any idea what is happening here ?
Does it have to do with call-id's or the contact-field's ????
version: ser 0.8.11pre8-mem (i386/linux)
Thank's in advance
Regards
Anna
__________________________________________________________________
anna rahm
ICQ#: 176699319
Current ICQ status:
+ More ways to contact me
__________________________________________________________________
The ser-0.8.10 sources contain a debian sub-directory for building
debian packages. However the control file in this directory lists
incomplete and improper build dependancies for the package.
Currently the dependancies are listed as:
Build-Depends: debhelper (>> 3.0.0), libmysqlclient-dev, libexpat1-dev,
fakeroot
While they should be:
Build-Depends: debhelper (>> 3.0.0), libmysqlclient-dev, libexpat1-dev,
zlib1g-dev
Fakeroot is not a necessary package for building the Debian ser package.
It simply makes it easier to build the package as a non-root user.
--
Jamin W. Collins
Folks,
I am currently playing with t_on_negative feature trying to implement
overflow routing (i.e. if original destination returns an error, then
request should be adjusted somehow and redirected to some, possibly
different, destination). I've started with the following config:
route {
[...]
rewriteFromRoute();
if (method == "INVITE") {
addRecordRoute();
};
if (method == "INVITE) {
t_on_negative("1");
};
t_relay_to("address1", "port1");
}
reply_route[1] {
rewritehostport("address2:port2");
append_branch();
}
But quickly found that after transaction was redirected to
address2:port2, ACKs, BYEs, 200K and CANCELS are still being forwarded
to address1:port1, despite containing valid Route fields pointing to
address2:port2. Then I've modified it as follows to let ser use
information from that field to route ACKs, 200OKs and BYEs:
route {
[...]
rewriteFromRoute();
if (method == "INVITE") {
addRecordRoute();
};
if (method == "INVITE" || method == "CANCEL") {
# INVITEs and CANCELs
if (method == "INVITE) {
t_on_negative("1");
};
t_relay_to("address1", "port1");
} else {
# ACKs, 200OKs, BYEs
t_relay();
};
}
reply_route[1] {
rewritehostport("address2:port2");
append_branch();
}
For the most of the time everything works like a charm - if
address1:port1 is unreachable or replies with an error the request is
being redirected to the second destination, BUT if the initiating UA
tries to cancel transaction when transaction is already redirected but
before receiving final "200 OK" from the second destination, the
CANCEL request is forwarded to address1:port1, not to address2:port2
as it should be. I've tried to modify setup as follows, thinking that
maybe in the case of CANCEL explicit specification of proxy address
confuses ser, but no avail - in this case ser forwards the CANCEL
request to its own address and eventually it dies with Too Many Hops.
route {
[...]
rewriteFromRoute();
if (method == "INVITE") {
addRecordRoute();
};
if (method == "INVITE") {
# INVITEs
t_on_negative("1");
t_relay_to("address1", "port1");
} else {
# CANCELs, ACKs, 200OKs, BYEs
t_relay();
};
}
reply_route[1] {
rewritehostport("address2:port2");
append_branch();
}
I think that such behaviour arises from the fact that ser after
branching a transaction doesn't keep an address this transaction was
forwarded to. In my opinion, it needs to be corrected, so that after
receiving CANCEL from the UA that initiated transaction ser probably
should CANCEL *all* branches of this transaction. To do this it needs
to be able to tell exactly where to send CANCELs.
What do you think?
-Maxim
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: "Geetha Shree" <geethas(a)erivasystems.com>
Reply-To: <geethas(a)erivasystems.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 01:15:24 -0700
hi
Thanks for the answer.
But again sorry ,i am geeting 408 request time out again.
I have changed the via-stack as was in the request
like below
>>SUBSCRIBE sip:geetha@192.168.1.9 SIP/2.0
>>Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.1.9:5060
>>Via: sip/2.0/UDP 192.168.1.22:5060
>>From: <sip:client1@192.168.1.9>;tag=1050301248710
>>To: <sip:client2@192.168.1.9>
>>Call-Id: 237f8aec0b47b309dfe8af3d844f9e95(a)192.168.1.22
>>CSeq: 1 SUBSCRIBE
>>Contact: <sip:192.168.1.22:5060>
>>Expires: 1800
>>Content-Length: 0
>>
>>
>>SIP/2.0 200 OK
>>Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.1.9:5060
>>Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.1.22:5060
>>From: <sip:client1@192.168.1.9>;tag=1050301248710
>>To: <sip:client2@192.168.1.9>;tag=1050301221190
>>Call-Id: 237f8aec0b47b309dfe8af3d844f9e95(a)192.168.1.22
>>CSeq: 1 SUBSCRIBE
>>Contact: <sip:192.168.1.21:5060>
>>Expires: 1800
>>Content-Length: 0
>the reply does not fit the request, since it has a different via stack.
>It's thus not recognized as a part of the transaction by proxy, forwarded
>statelessly and terminated with 408.
>
>-Jiri
>
>At 09:03 AM 4/15/2003, Geetha Shree wrote:
>>hi all,
>>
>>We are getting 408 request timeout for our SUBSCRIBE method inspite of other Useragent sending
>>a 200OK response for the SUBSCRIBE method.
>>
>>Both SUBSCRIBE and 200OK packets are getting proxied to respective user agents correctly.
>>But the client1 is receiving 408 request time out error and the client2 is receiving SUBSCRIBE methods often.
>>
>>The SUBSCRIBE packet and the 200OK packet are as shown below.
>>
>>SUBSCRIBE sip:geetha@192.168.1.9 SIP/2.0
>>Via: sip/2.0/UDP 192.168.1.22:5060
>>From: <sip:client1@192.168.1.9>;tag=1050301248710
>>To: <sip:client2@192.168.1.9>
>>Call-Id: 237f8aec0b47b309dfe8af3d844f9e95(a)192.168.1.22
>>CSeq: 1 SUBSCRIBE
>>Contact: <sip:192.168.1.22:5060>
>>Expires: 1800
>>Content-Length: 0
>>
>>
>>SIP/2.0 200 OK
>>Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.1.9:5060
>>Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.1.22:5060;received=192.168.1.22
>>From: <sip:client1@192.168.1.9>;tag=1050301248710
>>To: <sip:client2@192.168.1.9>;tag=1050301221190
>>Call-Id: 237f8aec0b47b309dfe8af3d844f9e95(a)192.168.1.22
>>CSeq: 1 SUBSCRIBE
>>Contact: <sip:192.168.1.21:5060>
>>Expires: 1800
>>Content-Length: 0
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Thanks
>>Geetha
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Serusers mailing list
>>serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
>>http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
>
>--
>Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/
>
>_______________________________________________
>Serusers mailing list
>serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
>http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
>
--
********************************************************************
eRiva provides IT Solutions & Services to companies worldwide.
Our State of the Art Research & Development Centers provides
Innovative Solutions to global customers.
********************************************************************
--
hi all,
We are getting 408 request timeout for our SUBSCRIBE method inspite of other Useragent sending
a 200OK response for the SUBSCRIBE method.
Both SUBSCRIBE and 200OK packets are getting proxied to respective user agents correctly.
But the client1 is receiving 408 request time out error and the client2 is receiving SUBSCRIBE methods often.
The SUBSCRIBE packet and the 200OK packet are as shown below.
SUBSCRIBE sip:geetha@192.168.1.9 SIP/2.0
Via: sip/2.0/UDP 192.168.1.22:5060
From: <sip:client1@192.168.1.9>;tag=1050301248710
To: <sip:client2@192.168.1.9>
Call-Id: 237f8aec0b47b309dfe8af3d844f9e95(a)192.168.1.22
CSeq: 1 SUBSCRIBE
Contact: <sip:192.168.1.22:5060>
Expires: 1800
Content-Length: 0
SIP/2.0 200 OK
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.1.9:5060
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.1.22:5060;received=192.168.1.22
From: <sip:client1@192.168.1.9>;tag=1050301248710
To: <sip:client2@192.168.1.9>;tag=1050301221190
Call-Id: 237f8aec0b47b309dfe8af3d844f9e95(a)192.168.1.22
CSeq: 1 SUBSCRIBE
Contact: <sip:192.168.1.21:5060>
Expires: 1800
Content-Length: 0
Thanks
Geetha
FYI
We found some SIP widely used implementations don't like loose-routing
parameter (";lr") without any value (which is the currently documented
use of loose-routing) and break. We will probably introduce a workaround
option which will allow to use lr with value (e.g., ";lr=true").
In particular, we learned that Windows Messenger, rejects loose-record-routed
requests and replies with "400 BAD Request" to INVITES with ";lr" in it.
Cisco IOS strips all RR parameters without value away, including ";lr" from
Route header fields in subsequent requests.
-Jiri
--
Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/
Hi all,
I downloaded the latest code from CVS and trying to
include Presence Agent(pa.so) in my ser.cfg file.
While trying to start the SER, i am geting
"Segmentation fault" error. I have included dependent
modules (tm,usrloc,jabber) before loading pa.so inside
ser.cfg. Is there any special parameters to be passed
for pa.so module through modparam ?
Also is there a client test program available to test
Presence module ?
Thanks,
Santosh
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
http://tax.yahoo.com