15 Nov
2004
15 Nov
'04
4:10 p.m.
Hi All,
Any idea, how to change registration timeout value in
ser.cfg so that my phone register with the server
every 5 minutes in place of default 1 minute.
Please advise.
Regards,
Suvendu.
________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! India Matrimony: Find your life partner online
Go to: http://yahoo.shaadi.com/india-matrimony
15 Nov
15 Nov
5:03 p.m.
Hi,
--- Suvendu Sethi <suvenduji(a)yahoo.co.in> wrote:
Any idea, how to change registration timeout value in
ser.cfg so that my phone register with the server
every 5 minutes in place of default 1 minute.
Try adding these headers when you get REGISTER messages. Change 120 to any appropriate
value you
need:
append_hf ("Expires: 120\r\n");
append_to_reply ("Expires: 120\r\n");
Cheers,
=====
Girish Gopinath <gr_sh2003(a)yahoo.com>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.
www.yahoo.com
5:52 p.m.
Hi Girish,
when you use append_hf() the modification will not reflect on the
message only when forwarded. So even if you add the Expired hdr, it will
not be consider by registrar module.
More appropriate is to use "min_expires" registrar parameter.
Best regards,
Marian
Girish wrote:
Hi,
--- Suvendu Sethi <suvenduji(a)yahoo.co.in> wrote:
--
Voice Sistem
http://www.voice-sistem.ro
Any idea, how to change registration timeout value
in
ser.cfg so that my phone register with the server
every 5 minutes in place of default 1 minute.
Try adding these headers when you get REGISTER messages. Change 120 to any appropriate
value you
need:
append_hf ("Expires: 120\r\n");
append_to_reply ("Expires: 120\r\n");
Cheers,
=====
Girish Gopinath <gr_sh2003(a)yahoo.com>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.
www.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
7:25 p.m.
Hello,
--- Marian Dumitru <marian.dumitru(a)voice-sistem.ro> wrote:
when you use append_hf() the modification will not
reflect on the
message only when forwarded. So even if you add the Expired hdr, it will
I think you meant 'will reflect'. right?
Here we use append_hf and append_to_reply to set the expires timeout with our softphone.
And
haven't noticed any problem so far. May be append_to_reply is doing the trick.
More appropriate is to use "min_expires"
registrar parameter.
Thanks for this info. I did not know about this.
Best regards,
Marian
Best Regards,
=====
Girish Gopinath <gr_sh2003(a)yahoo.com>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.
www.yahoo.com
7:44 p.m.
Hi Girish,
Maybe my sentence was a little too ambiguous :-). Just to rephrase:
"when you use append_hf() the modification will be reflected on the
message only when forwarded".
If you try your approach, it will be a discrepancy between what SER and
the phones think the expire value is. SER will consider the one received
in the original req. (it will ignore the new value forced from script
via append_hf() ) and the client will consider the value received in
reply ( the one forced from script via append_to_reply() ).
You can easily check this via "serctl ul show" and to see if the expire
time is the one you force from script.
Best regards,
Marian
Girish wrote:
Hello,
--- Marian Dumitru <marian.dumitru(a)voice-sistem.ro> wrote:
--
Voice Sistem
http://www.voice-sistem.ro
when you use append_hf() the modification will not
reflect on the
message only when forwarded. So even if you add the Expired hdr, it will
I think you meant 'will reflect'. right?
Here we use append_hf and append_to_reply to set the expires timeout with our softphone.
And
haven't noticed any problem so far. May be append_to_reply is doing the trick.
More appropriate is to use "min_expires"
registrar parameter.
Thanks for this info. I did not know about this.
Best regards,
Marian
Best Regards,
=====
Girish Gopinath <gr_sh2003(a)yahoo.com>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.
www.yahoo.com
8:31 p.m.
Hi,
Thanks for you inputs.
It's working fine now using min_expires.
Regards,
Suvendu.
--- Marian Dumitru <marian.dumitru(a)voice-sistem.ro>
wrote:
Hi Girish,
Maybe my sentence was a little too ambiguous :-).
Just to rephrase:
"when you use append_hf() the modification will be
reflected on the
message only when forwarded".
If you try your approach, it will be a discrepancy
between what SER and
the phones think the expire value is. SER will
consider the one received
in the original req. (it will ignore the new value
forced from script
via append_hf() ) and the client will consider the
value received in
reply ( the one forced from script via
append_to_reply() ).
You can easily check this via "serctl ul show" and
to see if the expire
time is the one you force from script.
Best regards,
Marian
Girish wrote:
________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! India Matrimony: Find your life partner online
Go to: http://yahoo.shaadi.com/india-matrimony
Hello,
--- Marian Dumitru
<marian.dumitru(a)voice-sistem.ro> wrote:
>when you use append_hf() the modification will not
reflect on the
>message only when forwarded. So even if you
add
the Expired hdr, it will
I think you meant 'will reflect'. right?
Here we use append_hf and append_to_reply to set
the expires timeout with our
softphone. And
haven't noticed any problem so far. May be
append_to_reply is doing the trick.
>More appropriate is to use "min_expires" registrar
parameter.
Thanks for this info. I did not know about this.
--
Voice Sistem
http://www.voice-sistem.ro
Best regards,
Marian
Best Regards,
=====
Girish Gopinath <gr_sh2003(a)yahoo.com>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.
www.yahoo.com
8:34 p.m.
Hello,
--- Marian Dumitru <marian.dumitru(a)voice-sistem.ro> wrote:
If you try your approach, it will be a discrepancy
between what SER and
the phones think the expire value is. SER will consider the one received
in the original req. (it will ignore the new value forced from script
via append_hf() ) and the client will consider the value received in
reply ( the one forced from script via append_to_reply() ).
Thanks!
Yes. You are correct. RFC says that the registrar should honour the expires
parameter/header in
the REGISTER request. It can add an expires header if it is not present in the request.
Our
softphones dont send expires parameter in the requests, may be the reason why there are no
issues.
Best regards,
Marian
Best Regards,
=====
Girish Gopinath <gr_sh2003(a)yahoo.com>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.
www.yahoo.com
16 Nov
16 Nov
3:42 p.m.
One small note to the topic. Registrar can shorten the expires value but
must not extend it. I made a mistake while implementing min_expires
parameter, the parameter would extend the expiration interval, but the
registrar should reject such a registration instead. This is what
RFC3261 says and I will change the registrar to reject such
registrations later.
Jan.
On 15-11 09:34, Girish wrote:
Hello,
--- Marian Dumitru <marian.dumitru(a)voice-sistem.ro> wrote:
If you try your approach, it will be a
discrepancy between what SER and
the phones think the expire value is. SER will consider the one received
in the original req. (it will ignore the new value forced from script
via append_hf() ) and the client will consider the value received in
reply ( the one forced from script via append_to_reply() ).
Thanks!
Yes. You are correct. RFC says that the registrar should honour the expires
parameter/header in
the REGISTER request. It can add an expires header if it is not present in the request.
Our
softphones dont send expires parameter in the requests, may be the reason why there are
no issues.
Best regards,
Marian
Best Regards,
=====
Girish Gopinath <gr_sh2003(a)yahoo.com>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.
www.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
5:47 p.m.
Hi Jan,
Thanks for your valuable input.
At this moment, I am managing this by modifying the
Registration Timeout values to 3 minutes in both SIP
phones and SER min_expires parameter.
SIP phones send registration requests in 3 minutes and
it works fine.
Regards,
Suvendu.
--- Jan Janak <jan(a)iptel.org> wrote:
One small note to the topic. Registrar can shorten
the expires value but
must not extend it. I made a mistake while
implementing min_expires
parameter, the parameter would extend the expiration
interval, but the
registrar should reject such a registration instead.
This is what
RFC3261 says and I will change the registrar to
reject such
registrations later.
Jan.
On 15-11 09:34, Girish wrote:
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! India Matrimony: Find your life partner online
Go to: http://yahoo.shaadi.com/india-matrimony
Hello,
--- Marian Dumitru
<marian.dumitru(a)voice-sistem.ro> wrote:
> If you try your approach, it will be a
discrepancy between what SER and
> the phones think the expire value is. SER
will
consider the one received
> in the original req. (it will ignore the new
value forced from script
> via append_hf() ) and the client will
consider
the value received in
> reply ( the one forced from script via
append_to_reply() ).
Thanks!
Yes. You are correct. RFC says that the registrar
should honour the expires
parameter/header in
the REGISTER request. It can add an expires
header
if it is not present in the request. Our
softphones dont send expires parameter in the
requests, may be the reason why there are no issues.
Best regards,
Marian
Best Regards,
=====
Girish Gopinath <gr_sh2003(a)yahoo.com>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.
www.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
5:50 p.m.
Hi,
--- Jan Janak <jan(a)iptel.org> wrote:
One small note to the topic. Registrar can shorten the
expires value but
must not extend it. I made a mistake while implementing min_expires
parameter, the parameter would extend the expiration interval, but the
registrar should reject such a registration instead. This is what
RFC3261 says and I will change the registrar to reject such
registrations later.
One question regarding the registration expiry. I tested the append_to_reply() with
Polycom IP500
phone, which sends an 'Expires:3600' header. It was replaced with
'Expires:120'. Now the '200 OK'
has an Expires header with 120 as the value, and a contact header with expires=3600
parameter.
Please see the ngrep trace attached. As far as i understand, the registrar should (in most
cases)
accept the expires value in the REGISTER request. But here the reply is transmitted with
2
different parameters.
Question: Can this be allowed? Can a reply have 2 different expires values?
No problems found in the working of phone though. Polycom accepted 120 as the expires,
which again
i beleive is wrong. I think expires parameter should be given priority. Right?
----------------------------------------
REGISTER sip:XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX:5060 SIP/2.0.
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.254.116;branch=z9hG4bK79970c8634833F95.
From: "Girish"
<sip:girish-testacc-com@XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX>;tag=A05656C2-24685943.
To: <sip:girish-testacc-com@XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX>.
CSeq: 5 REGISTER.
Call-ID: c80027a6-d7be6994-fae0d0b5(a)192.168.254.116.
Contact: <sip:girish-testacc-com@192.168.254.116>;methods="INVITE, ACK, BYE,
CANCEL, OPTIONS,
INFO, MESSAGE, SUBSCRIBE, NOTIFY, PRACK, UPDATE, REFER".
User-Agent: PolycomSoundPointIP-SPIP_500-UA/1.3.1.
Max-Forwards: 70.
Expires: 3600.
Content-Length: 0.
.
SIP/2.0 200 OK.
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
192.168.254.116;branch=z9hG4bK79970c8634833F95;rport=65168;received=XX.XXX.XX.XX.
From: "Girish"
<sip:girish-testacc-com@XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX>;tag=A05656C2-24685943.
To:
<sip:girish-testacc-com@XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX>;tag=b27e1a1d33761e85846fc98f5f3a7e58.16fd.
CSeq: 5 REGISTER.
Call-ID: c80027a6-d7be6994-fae0d0b5(a)192.168.254.116.
Expires: 120.
Contact: <sip:girish-testacc-com@XX.XXX.XX.XX:65168>;q=0.00;expires=3600.
Server: Sip EXpress router (0.8.14 (i386/linux)).
Content-Length: 0.
Warning: 392 XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX:5060 "Noisy feedback tells: pid=7754
req_src_ip=XX.XXX.XX.XX
req_src_port=65168 in_uri=sip:XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX:5060 out_uri=sip:XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX:5060
via_cnt==1".
--------------------------------
TIA & Regards,
=====
Girish Gopinath <gr_sh2003(a)yahoo.com>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today!
http://my.yahoo.com
21 Feb
21 Feb
3:48 p.m.
New subject: [Serusers] aliases or callfwd
Hi
Just wanted to get a insight as to whether its best to use aliases or
callfwd for the scenario below:
I have inbound pstn numbers assigned to SIP addresses.
Now what i am currently doing is to assign this PSTN number as a alias
to a sip address
just as I would set 1111 to iqbal(a)sip.domain.com
I have set 0207xxxxxxx to iqbal(a)sip.domain.com
BUT I dont think this is the best way, since it then interferes with
"actual" aliases that I may have ...internal ones.
Can I instead use a call forward, so thay I enter the 0207 number in my
forward tabel instead...or will that not work, having said this again i
think it will interfere with my normal aliases. Has anyone setup a
separate table/entity to do inbound number processing, and keep it
separate/distinct from internally generated numbers
Iqbal
7200
days inactive
7298
days old
10 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Girish -
Iqbal Gandham -
Jan Janak -
Marian Dumitru -
Suvendu Sethi