sr-users

sr-users@lists.kamailio.org

32 participants
37541 discussions

[Serusers] linux hang
by Geetha Shree 16 Apr '03

16 Apr '03

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. ******************************************************************** --

2 1

[Serusers] (no subject)
by anna 16 Apr '03

16 Apr '03

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 __________________________________________________________________

2 1

[Serusers] Improper Debian Build Depends
by Jamin W. Collins 16 Apr '03

16 Apr '03

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

3 4

[Serusers] You wrote a letter to me. Who are you?
by Luchya_Dobrynina 16 Apr '03

16 Apr '03

Hello! You have received a postcard. You can see it here: http://postcards.rin.ru/postcards/post/humour1.html Only for adults: SEX-TEST - http://eros.rin.ru/index_e.html and WALLPAPERS - http://wallpapers.rin.ru/index_e.html For music-lovers: Free 100 000 mp3-files - http://mp3.rin.ru/index_e.html And for all: Surprise! - http://humor.rin.ru/photo_e.html Goodby, Gerry. You can refuse to receive letters. For that just send a letter to unsubscribe14.com with the subject: DELETE.

1 0

[Serusers] Serious defficiencies of the t_on_negative feature
by Maxim Sobolev 15 Apr '03

15 Apr '03

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

2 2

FWD: Re: [Serusers] Regarding SUBSCRIBE method
by Geetha Shree 15 Apr '03

15 Apr '03

---------- 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. ******************************************************************** --

1 0

[Serusers] Regarding SUBSCRIBE method
by Geetha Shree 15 Apr '03

15 Apr '03

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

2 1

[Serusers] loose routing & M$ & Cisco
by Jiri Kuthan 14 Apr '03

14 Apr '03

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/

1 0

[Serusers] Problem with Presence Agent Module
by 2 2 14 Apr '03

14 Apr '03

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

3 2

[Serusers] Redhat 7.3 Compiler Question pertaining to SER
by Scott Holben 14 Apr '03

14 Apr '03

Hi, I got Pingtel, SipTone hardphones and Windows Messenger softphone to work just fine with the SER 0.8.9 server on the Internet via a Intertex IX66 firewall. I tweaked the SIP phone configurations to use the SER 0.8.10 I installed at home, from the binary RPM obtained from ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/ser/0.8.10/packages/redhat/7.x. I ran into some very strange behaviors with SER and the firewall. I disconnected the firewall connection to the Internet and the SIP INVITE transactions stopped involving the firewall. This was evident from analyzing Ethereal captures. (It was if the firewall was in a promiscuous mode of operation an acted upon packets that did not apply to it.) However, I still could not get INVITE transactions to generate 2xx responses for two local phone and SER proxy configured without authentication. So, I tried compiling the source code on my Redhat 7.3 box. > gcc -v Reading specs from /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-redhat-linux/2.96/specs gcc version 2.96 20000731 (Red Hat Linux 7.3 2.96-110) > make config <- for SER . . . Old gcc detected (2.9x), use gcc >= 3.1 for better results make: *** No rule to make target `config'. Stop. My question is should I compile SER with the GCC 2.96 compiler or pay attention to the make config message and update GCC? (Some of the RPM binaries differ from what I compiled with the default RH 7.3 GCC 2.96 compiler.) Sincerely, Scott Holben (skaht(a)iptel.org)

2 1

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