Jan,
Thank you for the response.
The longer I use the SER proxy server, the more uses I find for it.
What I am currently envisioning is this:
I run a PBX PROXY server for a specific business customer. This customer has a private naming (numbering) plan. The names of the UA devices are 101, 102, 103, etc.. These are 'extension numbers'.
I would like to be able to make the PBX 'pretend' it is the phone. It will send a REGISTER to the GATEWAY, and then subsequent INVITES for that number will be sent to the PBX. The PBX will determine how to deliver the call using local rules on the SER proxy. The rules will be something like:
business days between 9am and 5pm forward all incoming calls to x100.
If extension 100 is busy (or doesn't answer), roll to extension 101.
If extension 101 is busy (or doesn't answer), roll to voice mail.
And a million other things.
I realize that I can forward the call from the GATEWAY to the PBX, but, I think it would be MUCH cleaner if I could tell the SER PBX engine to REGISTER a number....
Make sense?
---greg
Greg,
it would be possible with some shell script magic. It is possible to send a REGISTER message using the fifo interface.
Before we dig into into it, let me ask what is the reason for doing something like that ? Can't you simply forward the SIP messages from GATEWAY to PBX and if PBX is off or crashed then the GATEWAY will send "Request timeout" to the PSTN (instead of 404) ? Or am I missing something ?
Jan.
On 03-12 21:59, Greg Fausak wrote:
Hello,
I have a SER server, it has 2 phones registered to it. The phones are 300000 and 300100. The registration works fine, and I can place calls between them. I am calling this my 'PBX'.
I have another SER server that can connect to a PSTN. I can register my phone number with it, and I can make and receive calls from the PSTN. Let's say that phone number is 2145551212@addaline.com. I'm calling this my 'GATEWAY'.
OK, here is the tricky part. I would like to make the SER 'PBX' *REGISTER* 2145551212@addaline.com with the SER GATEWAY ... just like it is a UA. So an incoming call to 2145551212 would get delivered to the SER PBX, and I'll figure out which extension gets the call with local rules. For very simplistic delivery at the PBX I can alias 2145551212 as 300000.
If the PBX crashes, or is turned off, the 2145551212 registration will eventually evaporate.
Anyway, I can't figure out anyway to get SERPBX to register with SER GATEWAY.
Is this possible?
---greg
Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
Superuser wrote:
Jan,
Thank you for the response.
The longer I use the SER proxy server, the more uses I find for it.
What I am currently envisioning is this:
I run a PBX PROXY server for a specific business customer. This customer has a private naming (numbering) plan. The names of the UA devices are 101, 102, 103, etc.. These are 'extension numbers'.
I would like to be able to make the PBX 'pretend' it is the phone. It will send a REGISTER to the GATEWAY, and then subsequent INVITES for that number will be sent to the PBX. The PBX will determine how to deliver the call using local rules on the SER proxy. The rules will be something like:
business days between 9am and 5pm forward all incoming calls to x100.
If extension 100 is busy (or doesn't answer), roll to extension 101.
If extension 101 is busy (or doesn't answer), roll to voice mail.
And a million other things.
I realize that I can forward the call from the GATEWAY to the PBX, but, I think it would be MUCH cleaner if I could tell the SER PBX engine to REGISTER a number....
With the risk of being bashed on this list, I would propose that you use Asterisk as a PBX. It can register to SER, it's not a full-featured SIP proxy as SER, but have the functions you need on the PBX level. Voicemail, conferencing, call groups and a lot more. SER and Asterisk is a good combination in the scenario you describe.
/Olle
No, you will be not bashed. Anything related to SIP is accepted on the list. And because Asterisk is used quite often with SER, mentioning it here is perfectly fine.
This list is not strictly SER-centric because SER is just a part of the whole infrastructure that people try to set up.
Jan.
On 04-12 19:42, Olle E. Johansson wrote:
With the risk of being bashed on this list, I would propose that you use Asterisk as a PBX. It can register to SER, it's not a full-featured SIP proxy as SER, but have the functions you need on the PBX level. Voicemail, conferencing, call groups and a lot more. SER and Asterisk is a good combination in the scenario you describe.
/Olle
Olle E. Johansson wrote:
Superuser wrote:
Jan,
Thank you for the response.
The longer I use the SER proxy server, the more uses I find for it.
What I am currently envisioning is this:
I run a PBX PROXY server for a specific business customer. This customer has a private naming (numbering) plan. The names of the UA devices are 101, 102, 103, etc.. These are 'extension numbers'.
I would like to be able to make the PBX 'pretend' it is the phone. It will send a REGISTER to the GATEWAY, and then subsequent INVITES for that number will be sent to the PBX. The PBX will determine how to deliver the call using local rules on the SER proxy. The rules will be something like:
business days between 9am and 5pm forward all incoming calls to x100.
If extension 100 is busy (or doesn't answer), roll to extension 101.
If extension 101 is busy (or doesn't answer), roll to voice mail.
And a million other things.
I realize that I can forward the call from the GATEWAY to the PBX, but, I think it would be MUCH cleaner if I could tell the SER PBX engine to REGISTER a number....
With the risk of being bashed on this list, I would propose that you use Asterisk as a PBX. It can register to SER, it's not a full-featured SIP proxy as SER, but have the functions you need on the PBX level. Voicemail, conferencing, call groups and a lot more. SER and Asterisk is a good combination in the scenario you describe.
Maybe this is a stupid question, but would it be possible to use SER and Asterisk together to provide (group) call-pickup functionality? I know Asterisk can do it, and I know SER can't do it.
Maybe forking the INVITE to both the user and Asterisk?
Geert
Geert Nijpels wrote:
Olle E. Johansson wrote:
With the risk of being bashed on this list, I would propose that you use Asterisk as a PBX. It can register to SER, it's not a full-featured SIP proxy as SER, but have the functions you need on the PBX level. Voicemail, conferencing, call groups and a lot more. SER and Asterisk is a good combination in the scenario you describe.
Maybe this is a stupid question, but would it be possible to use SER and Asterisk together to provide (group) call-pickup functionality? I know Asterisk can do it, and I know SER can't do it.
Maybe forking the INVITE to both the user and Asterisk?
Interesting question. Who's picking up? SIP users on SER or extensions on Asterisk?
/O
Olle E. Johansson wrote:
Geert Nijpels wrote:
Olle E. Johansson wrote:
With the risk of being bashed on this list, I would propose that you use Asterisk as a PBX. It can register to SER, it's not a full-featured SIP proxy as SER, but have the functions you need on the PBX level. Voicemail, conferencing, call groups and a lot more. SER and Asterisk is a good combination in the scenario you describe.
Maybe this is a stupid question, but would it be possible to use SER and Asterisk together to provide (group) call-pickup functionality? I know Asterisk can do it, and I know SER can't do it.
Maybe forking the INVITE to both the user and Asterisk?
Interesting question. Who's picking up? SIP users on SER or extensions on Asterisk?
/O
Well I guess with a ser proxy in the network you don't want to register with asterisk. Maybe a call can be placed in a hold queue in asterisk and when a special extension is called, this can be catched with ser and maybe a REFER (ctd.sh?) request can be generated to asterisk?
Probably my imagination has gone wild:)
Geert
Greg,
I think I understand your scenario well. What I am not sure about is if using REGISTER in this case is a good idea.
What I didn't mention in my previous email is that there will be problem with authentication. REGISTER messages should be always authenticated because they contain sensitive information and without authentication bad guys can hijack calls to other people.
It is possible to send a REGISTER message through the FIFO interface, but if the REGISTER message gets challenged then there is no easy way (read it requires much more scripting/coding) to build a proper digest reply and re-send the message. It can be written, but I am not sure it is worth it.
I think that you can achieve the same by modifying usrloc/aliases by hand and then the PBXes do not have to register.
Note that some administrative actions would be necessary even if PBXes would register with GATEWAY because you would have to provision your GATEWAY server with passwords they will be using.
So it will work like this: When you install a new PBX for one of your customers, you need to create an account for his anyway. When you create the account you can create also a permanent usrloc record so the new PBX doesn't have to register.
All calls to the permanent usrloc records will be then sent to the new PBX. If the PBX is only then the request will time out on GATEWAY and the GATEWAY will send a 4xx to the PSTN.
So it works exactly as you describe, the only difference is that usrloc records will be not created from REGISTER messages sent by PBXes, but by you when creating the account.
Usrloc entries can be created/deleted in serweb or using the serctl utility.
Does it make sense to you ? (The problem with PBXes sending REGISTER to GATEWAY is digest authentication).
Jan.
On 04-12 12:09, Superuser wrote:
Jan,
Thank you for the response.
The longer I use the SER proxy server, the more uses I find for it.
What I am currently envisioning is this:
I run a PBX PROXY server for a specific business customer. This customer has a private naming (numbering) plan. The names of the UA devices are 101, 102, 103, etc.. These are 'extension numbers'.
I would like to be able to make the PBX 'pretend' it is the phone. It will send a REGISTER to the GATEWAY, and then subsequent INVITES for that number will be sent to the PBX. The PBX will determine how to deliver the call using local rules on the SER proxy. The rules will be something like:
business days between 9am and 5pm forward all incoming calls to x100.
If extension 100 is busy (or doesn't answer), roll to extension 101.
If extension 101 is busy (or doesn't answer), roll to voice mail.
And a million other things.
I realize that I can forward the call from the GATEWAY to the PBX, but, I think it would be MUCH cleaner if I could tell the SER PBX engine to REGISTER a number....
Make sense?
---greg
Greg,
it would be possible with some shell script magic. It is possible to send a REGISTER message using the fifo interface.
Before we dig into into it, let me ask what is the reason for doing something like that ? Can't you simply forward the SIP messages from GATEWAY to PBX and if PBX is off or crashed then the GATEWAY will send "Request timeout" to the PSTN (instead of 404) ? Or am I missing something ?
Jan.
On 03-12 21:59, Greg Fausak wrote:
Hello,
I have a SER server, it has 2 phones registered to it. The phones are 300000 and 300100. The registration works fine, and I can place calls between them. I am calling this my 'PBX'.
I have another SER server that can connect to a PSTN. I can register my phone number with it, and I can make and receive calls from the PSTN. Let's say that phone number is 2145551212@addaline.com. I'm calling this my 'GATEWAY'.
OK, here is the tricky part. I would like to make the SER 'PBX' *REGISTER* 2145551212@addaline.com with the SER GATEWAY ... just like it is a UA. So an incoming call to 2145551212 would get delivered to the SER PBX, and I'll figure out which extension gets the call with local rules. For very simplistic delivery at the PBX I can alias 2145551212 as 300000.
If the PBX crashes, or is turned off, the 2145551212 registration will eventually evaporate.
Anyway, I can't figure out anyway to get SERPBX to register with SER GATEWAY.
Is this possible?
---greg
Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
At 07:09 PM 12/4/2003, Superuser wrote:
Jan,
Thank you for the response.
The longer I use the SER proxy server, the more uses I find for it.
What I am currently envisioning is this:
I run a PBX PROXY server for a specific business customer. This customer has a private naming (numbering) plan. The names of the UA devices are 101, 102, 103, etc.. These are 'extension numbers'.
I would like to be able to make the PBX 'pretend' it is the phone. It will send a REGISTER to the GATEWAY, and then subsequent INVITES for that number will be sent to the PBX. The PBX will determine how to deliver the call using local rules on the SER proxy. The rules will be something like:
business days between 9am and 5pm forward all incoming calls to x100.
If extension 100 is busy (or doesn't answer), roll to extension 101.
If extension 101 is busy (or doesn't answer), roll to voice mail.
And a million other things.
I realize that I can forward the call from the GATEWAY to the PBX, but, I think it would be MUCH cleaner if I could tell the SER PBX engine to REGISTER a number....
If it is just about registering a simple number, why can't you provision a permanent contact using SERCTL? Or if it is about forwarding a number block, can't you just set up a condition like if (uri=~"sip:9721111.*")...
-jiri
-
Geert Nijpels -
Jan Janak -
Jiri Kuthan -
Olle E. Johansson -
root＠august.net