hi i'm new guy in this list
and i have a litle problem with connectivity to psnt
thru cisco as5300
below is my ser.cfg, yyy.yyy.yyy.yyy is ip of ser and
xx.xxx.xxx.xxx is ip of the cisco gw
if (uri=~"^sip:[0-9]*@yyy.yyy.yyy.yyy"){
log("Forward to pstn \n");
t_relay_to("xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx","5060");
break;
};
and i have this on my cisco
!
dial-peer voice 4 voip
incoming called number .
destination-pattern 2525T
session protocol sipv2
session target sip-server
codec g723r63
!
!
sip-ua
calling-info sip-to-pstn number set 113950029
sip-server ipv4:yyy.yyy.yy.yyyy
!
my pproblem is.. i cant if i dial to 252544123 from my
softphone , it's not work
but when i dial with format 252544123(a)xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx
it always work
anyone have clue for my problem?
thx
budi
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo
http://search.yahoo.com
Hi All,
Has anyone got a Grandstream Budgettel SIP phone to work successfully with
8.10 version of SER. When Attempting to register I get an error with what
appears to be the Allow header.
Actual header value is from phone is (from ethereal capture is):
Allow: INVITE, ACK, CANCEL, BYE, NOTIFY, OPTIONS
Log Entry
Apr 17 10:39:52 mercedes /usr/local/sbin/ser[31505]: ERROR: get_hdr_field:
bad body for <Allow>(1048576)
Apr 17 10:39:52 mercedes /usr/local/sbin/ser[31505]: ERROR: bad header
field
Apr 17 10:39:52 mercedes /usr/local/sbin/ser[31505]: ERROR:
build_res_buf_from_sip_req: alas, parse_headers failed
Any help would be appreciated.
Steve
I'm interesting in experimenting with ENUM in conjunction with Ser and was
wondering if there is support for enum within ser. Additionally, if anyone
has experience and/or information on setting up a dns server for use with
ENUM that would be appreciated.
Steve Lewis
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
