sr-users July 2004

sr-users@lists.kamailio.org

178 participants
449 discussions

[Serusers] MySQL
by Charles Galea 19 Jul '04

19 Jul '04

Hi, any idea why SER (ver 8_12) requires MySql server to be running on the local machine, even if the actual MySQL SER database is running on a separate machine? Thanks Charles and Andrew

2 1

RE: [Serusers] Problem with messages + msilo
by Dave Bath 19 Jul '04

19 Jul '04

Hey there, Once again, many thanks for a swift response Andrei! No, the machine does not have two interfaces, it's a single public ip address. What do you mean about ingress filtering? Which network dumps would be helpful? Many thanks again! D -----Original Message----- From: Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul [mailto:pelinescu-onciul@fokus.fraunhofer.de] Sent: 17 July 2004 09:00 To: Dave Bath Cc: serusers(a)lists.iptel.org Subject: Re: [Serusers] Problem with messages + msilo On Jul 16, 2004 at 23:44, Dave Bath <dave(a)fuuz.com> wrote: > > Daniel, > > many thanks for swift response!. If I set fork=yes I get the same error. > If I set listen=<ip> then strange things break.. calls are no longer > connected properly, and UAs cant log in. > > Any more suggestions?! Do you have multiple network interfaces on the machine, and UAs on both "sides"? If so turn off ingress filtering on your machine or try to add mhomed=1 in your ser.cfg. Also send some networks dumps along with the log entries. Andrei

2 1

[Serusers] cpl / cpl-c
by Lakmal Silva 19 Jul '04

19 Jul '04

Hi guys, What is the difference between the modules cpl and cpl-c? I wonder whether both is needed to use the CPLed application. Any help is appreciated. -- Regards, Lakmal Lankacom Services (Pvt) Ltd. 65C, Dharmapala Mawatha, Colombo 07. Sri Lanka. Tel: +94-11-2437545 www.lankacom.net

2 1

RE: Re[4]: [Serusers] NAT vs. NoNat authentication
by Bart Van Daal 19 Jul '04

19 Jul '04

Great!! this actually worked. I've changed the port from 5060 to 5070 and now authorization runs fine. Could anyone give a logical explanation for this? thanks again Mike, Bart > -----Original Message----- > From: Mike Tkachuk [mailto:mike@yes.net.ua] > Sent: maandag 19 juli 2004 13:48 > To: Bart Van Daal > Subject: Re[4]: [Serusers] NAT vs. NoNat authentication > > > > Hello Bart, > > Monday, July 19, 2004, 2:27:21 PM, you wrote: > > > BVD> Hi Mike, > > BVD> thanks for the answer and the tip.. > BVD> I can see the sipserver sending multiple '401' to the > router, so I > BVD> guess the router just drops these packets because it > doesn't know > BVD> what to do with them? I now have put the UA in dmz but > that still > BVD> doesn't solve the problem. I'll look further. > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Mike Tkachuk [mailto:mike@yes.net.ua] > >> Sent: maandag 19 juli 2004 11:56 > >> To: Bart Van Daal > >> Subject: Re[2]: [Serusers] NAT vs. NoNat authentication > >> > >> > >> > >> Hello Bart, > >> > >> Looks like UA not receiving 401 unauthorized message from > SER, that's > >> why it not resend REGISTER message with calculated digest. > >> Maybe you have some troubles with NAT on 213.219.137.148? > >> > >> Hint: use ngrep with -W byline option (eg: ngrep -W byline > port 5060 > >> ) > >> > >> -- > >> Best regards, > >> > >> ~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,. > >> Mike Tkachuk, ph:380-3433-47067 > >> YES ISP, fx:380-3433-47067 > >> Valova 17, mike|a|yes.net.ua > >> Kolomyia, www.yes.net.ua > >> Ukraine 78200 FWD: 66518 > >> > >> 19.07.2004 > >> ICQ# 57698805 > >> MSN: mike_tkachuk|a|hotmail.com > >> ~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,. > >> > > One thing... some routers think that they are very smart :), > so try to change port on SER from 5060 to some other ( like: > port=5070 ) most of routers can be fooled with it. > > -- > Best regards, > > ~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,. > Mike Tkachuk, ph:380-3433-47067 > YES ISP, fx:380-3433-47067 > Valova 17, mike|a|yes.net.ua > Kolomyia, www.yes.net.ua > Ukraine 78200 FWD: 66518 > > 19.07.2004 > ICQ# 57698805 > MSN: mike_tkachuk|a|hotmail.com > ~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,. >

2 1

[Serusers] TCP<->UDP problem
by Sergio Miguel 19 Jul '04

19 Jul '04

Hello, With the default configuration of SER 0.8.12, and two registered UA's using TCP as transport protocol, when I try to make a call between them, the call arrives in UDP packets ! This is the scenario: TCP TCP UA1 <---------> SIP SERVER <-----------> UA2 The UA's are registered to the SIP server using the "transport=tcp" flag in the Contact field, for example: "Contact: 12345678@80.37.88.152:13245;transport=tcp" But when UA1 calls UA2 ( using the TCP connection ), the INVITE is resent over UDP to the port specified in the Contact field, instead of using the established TCPconnection. I have tried t_relay(), forward(uri:host,uri:port) and forward_tcp(uri:host,uri:port) and all resend the INVITE over UDP. ( I don´t understand why the third case fails ¿? ) I have tried t_relay_to_tcp("80.37.88.152","13245") and forward_tcp(80.37.88.152,13245) and they work fine, but I must specify the IP:Port by hand, but I need automatically the IP:Port from the table of registered ussers. Thanks in advance for your help ! Sergio.

2 1

RE: [Serusers] NAT vs. NoNat authentication
by Bart Van Daal 19 Jul '04

19 Jul '04

Thank you Andrei, this is the ngrep output from 'ngrep bart port 5060'. I'm only connecting the natted phone: # U 213.219.137.148:5060 -> 212.71.0.90:5060 REGISTER sip:ser.edpnet.net:5060 SIP/2.0..Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 213.219.137.148:50198..Supported: replaces..User-Agent: SIP201 (lp201sip.100a)..Contact: <sip:bart@10.0.0.2:5060>;expires=60..From: <sip:bart@ser.edpnet.net> ;tag=a000002-13c4-0-42e-7 fea..To: <sip:bart@ser.edpnet.net>..Call-ID: a000002-13c4-0-406-79bf-1..CSeq: 1 REGISTER..Content-Length:0.... # U 212.71.0.90:5060 -> 213.219.137.148:5060 SIP/2.0 401 Unauthorized..Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 213.219.137.148:50198;rport=5060..From: <sip:bart@ser.edpnet.net> ;tag=a000002 -13c4-0-42e-7fea..To: <sip:bart@ser.edpnet.net>;tag=61a88e7fd5f0561d96cde0cc9ecba6d7.9adf..Call-ID : a000002-13c4-0-406-79 bf-1..CSeq: 1 REGISTER..WWW-Authenticate: Digest realm="ser.edpnet.net", nonce="40fb952b226d9f0726f09c5fda8db0fe3b9a47d2" ..Server: Sip EXpress router (0.8.13-dev-33-usrloc (i386/linux))..Content-Length: 0..Warning: 392 212.71.0.90:5060 "Noisy feedback tells: pid=17817 req_src_ip=213.219.137.148 req_src_port=5060 in_uri=sip:ser.edpnet.net:5060 out_uri=sip:ser.edpnet.net:5060 via_cnt==1".... --- the second register: U 213.219.137.148:5060 -> 212.71.0.90:5060 REGISTER sip:ser.edpnet.net:5060 SIP/2.0..Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 213.219.137.148:50198..Supported: replaces..User-Agent: SIP201 (lp201sip.100a)..Contact: <sip:bart@10.0.0.2:5060>;expires=60..From: <sip:bart@ser.edpnet.net> ;tag=a000002-13c4-0-42e-7 fea..To: <sip:bart@ser.edpnet.net>..Call-ID: a000002-13c4-0-406-79bf-1..CSeq: 1 REGISTER..Content-Length:0.... # U 212.71.0.90:5060 -> 213.219.137.148:5060 SIP/2.0 401 Unauthorized..Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 213.219.137.148:50198;rport=5060..From: <sip:bart@ser.edpnet.net> ;tag=a000002-13c4-0-42e-7fea..To: <sip:bart@ser.edpnet.net>;tag=61a88e7fd5f0561d96cde0cc9ecba6d7.9adf..Call-ID : a000002-13c4-0-406-79 bf-1..CSeq: 1 REGISTER..WWW-Authenticate: Digest realm="ser.edpnet.net", nonce="40fb952cf1352a491276a2e811642001d3698340" ..Server: Sip EXpress router (0.8.13-dev-33-usrloc (i386/linux))..Content-Length: 0..Warning: 392 212.71.0.90:5060 "Noisy feedback tells: pid=17817 req_src_ip=213.219.137.148 req_src_port=5060 in_uri=sip:ser.edpnet.net:5060 out_uri=sip:ser.edpnet.net:5060 via_cnt==1".... # So I guess my UA doesn't resend the request with the proper auth? thanks, Bart > -----Original Message----- > From: Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul > [mailto:pelinescu-onciul@fokus.fraunhofer.de] > Sent: vrijdag 16 juli 2004 17:22 > To: Bart Van Daal > Cc: serusers(a)lists.iptel.org > Subject: Re: [Serusers] NAT vs. NoNat authentication > > On Jul 16, 2004 at 13:38, Bart Van Daal <B.Vandaal(a)edpnet.net> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Is there a difference in authenticating a natted or > non-nated UA using > > www_authen? The reason i'm asking is because when my UA is directly > > connected to the internet it authenticates fine but when > NATed I get > > the following error: > > > > parse_headers: flags=4096 > > 0(12877) pre_auth(): Credentials with given realm not found > > 0(12877) ---:: didn't authorize > > 0(12877) build_auth_hf(): 'WWW-Authenticate: Digest > > realm="ser.edpnet.net", > nonce="40f7be4edbd22e214821f2a3937968fc049ae290" ' > > 0(12877) parse_headers: flags=-1 > > > This is normal if it happens only for the first request. Your > UA sends the first request without auth. info., the server > sends back a negative reply with and auth. header and then > your UA is supposed to retry to send the request with proper auth. > > In the future please include network dumps. > > Andrei >

2 1

RE: [Serusers] NAT vs. NoNat authentication
by dhiraj.2.bhuyan＠bt.com 19 Jul '04

19 Jul '04

I had a look at your ngrep output. What confused me is this part - "U 213.219.137.148:5060 -> 212.71.0.90:5060 REGISTER sip:ser.edpnet.net:5060 SIP/2.0..Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 213.219.137.148:50198..Supported: replaces..User-Agent: SIP201" Note that 213.219.137.148:50198 - what does that port number 50198 signify (although the first line says its going from 5060 to 5060)? Can you show the ngrep when you use port 5070? Dhiraj -----Original Message----- From: serusers-bounces(a)iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org]On Behalf Of Bart Van Daal Sent: 19 July 2004 14:36 To: serusers(a)lists.iptel.org Subject: RE: [Serusers] NAT vs. NoNat authentication No, it's a standard ADSL router. I've reset the router to it's default settings so it only does NAT, without DMZ, without any port being forwarded. I've tried again with port 5060 -> same problem Tried with port 5070 -> everything works fine.. just out of curiousity, is there a logical explanation for this? thanks, Bart > -----Original Message----- > From: dhiraj.2.bhuyan(a)bt.com [mailto:dhiraj.2.bhuyan@bt.com] > Sent: maandag 19 juli 2004 14:13 > To: B.Vandaal(a)edpnet.net; serusers(a)lists.iptel.org > Subject: RE: Re[4]: [Serusers] NAT vs. NoNat authentication > > Does your NAT gateway have some inbuilt SIP feature? For > example - a SIP ALG on it? If yes, try disabling it. > > Also check if you have set any port forwarding rule on your > NAT gateway for port 5060. > > Dhiraj > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: serusers-bounces(a)iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org]On > Behalf Of Bart Van Daal > Sent: 19 July 2004 13:05 > To: serusers(a)lists.iptel.org > Subject: RE: Re[4]: [Serusers] NAT vs. NoNat authentication > > > Great!! > > this actually worked. I've changed the port from 5060 to 5070 > and now authorization runs fine. Could anyone give a logical > explanation for this? > > thanks again Mike, > Bart > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Mike Tkachuk [mailto:mike@yes.net.ua] > > Sent: maandag 19 juli 2004 13:48 > > To: Bart Van Daal > > Subject: Re[4]: [Serusers] NAT vs. NoNat authentication > > > > > > > > Hello Bart, > > > > Monday, July 19, 2004, 2:27:21 PM, you wrote: > > > > > > BVD> Hi Mike, > > > > BVD> thanks for the answer and the tip.. > > BVD> I can see the sipserver sending multiple '401' to the > > router, so I > > BVD> guess the router just drops these packets because it > > doesn't know > > BVD> what to do with them? I now have put the UA in dmz but > > that still > > BVD> doesn't solve the problem. I'll look further. > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: Mike Tkachuk [mailto:mike@yes.net.ua] > > >> Sent: maandag 19 juli 2004 11:56 > > >> To: Bart Van Daal > > >> Subject: Re[2]: [Serusers] NAT vs. NoNat authentication > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Hello Bart, > > >> > > >> Looks like UA not receiving 401 unauthorized message from > > SER, that's > > >> why it not resend REGISTER message with calculated digest. > > >> Maybe you have some troubles with NAT on 213.219.137.148? > > >> > > >> Hint: use ngrep with -W byline option (eg: ngrep -W byline > > port 5060 > > >> ) > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Best regards, > > >> > > >> ~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,. > > >> Mike Tkachuk, ph:380-3433-47067 > > >> YES ISP, fx:380-3433-47067 > > >> Valova 17, mike|a|yes.net.ua > > >> Kolomyia, www.yes.net.ua > > >> Ukraine 78200 FWD: 66518 > > >> > > >> 19.07.2004 > > >> ICQ# 57698805 > > >> MSN: mike_tkachuk|a|hotmail.com > > >> ~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,. > > >> > > > > One thing... some routers think that they are very smart > :), so try to > > change port on SER from 5060 to some other ( like: > > port=5070 ) most of routers can be fooled with it. > > > > -- > > Best regards, > > > > ~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,. > > Mike Tkachuk, ph:380-3433-47067 > > YES ISP, fx:380-3433-47067 > > Valova 17, mike|a|yes.net.ua > > Kolomyia, www.yes.net.ua > > Ukraine 78200 FWD: 66518 > > > > 19.07.2004 > > ICQ# 57698805 > > MSN: mike_tkachuk|a|hotmail.com > > ~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Serusers mailing list > serusers(a)lists.iptel.org > http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers > _______________________________________________ Serusers mailing list serusers(a)lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers

1 0

RE: [Serusers] NAT vs. NoNat authentication
by Bart Van Daal 19 Jul '04

19 Jul '04

No, it's a standard ADSL router. I've reset the router to it's default settings so it only does NAT, without DMZ, without any port being forwarded. I've tried again with port 5060 -> same problem Tried with port 5070 -> everything works fine.. just out of curiousity, is there a logical explanation for this? thanks, Bart > -----Original Message----- > From: dhiraj.2.bhuyan(a)bt.com [mailto:dhiraj.2.bhuyan@bt.com] > Sent: maandag 19 juli 2004 14:13 > To: B.Vandaal(a)edpnet.net; serusers(a)lists.iptel.org > Subject: RE: Re[4]: [Serusers] NAT vs. NoNat authentication > > Does your NAT gateway have some inbuilt SIP feature? For > example - a SIP ALG on it? If yes, try disabling it. > > Also check if you have set any port forwarding rule on your > NAT gateway for port 5060. > > Dhiraj > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: serusers-bounces(a)iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org]On > Behalf Of Bart Van Daal > Sent: 19 July 2004 13:05 > To: serusers(a)lists.iptel.org > Subject: RE: Re[4]: [Serusers] NAT vs. NoNat authentication > > > Great!! > > this actually worked. I've changed the port from 5060 to 5070 > and now authorization runs fine. Could anyone give a logical > explanation for this? > > thanks again Mike, > Bart > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Mike Tkachuk [mailto:mike@yes.net.ua] > > Sent: maandag 19 juli 2004 13:48 > > To: Bart Van Daal > > Subject: Re[4]: [Serusers] NAT vs. NoNat authentication > > > > > > > > Hello Bart, > > > > Monday, July 19, 2004, 2:27:21 PM, you wrote: > > > > > > BVD> Hi Mike, > > > > BVD> thanks for the answer and the tip.. > > BVD> I can see the sipserver sending multiple '401' to the > > router, so I > > BVD> guess the router just drops these packets because it > > doesn't know > > BVD> what to do with them? I now have put the UA in dmz but > > that still > > BVD> doesn't solve the problem. I'll look further. > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: Mike Tkachuk [mailto:mike@yes.net.ua] > > >> Sent: maandag 19 juli 2004 11:56 > > >> To: Bart Van Daal > > >> Subject: Re[2]: [Serusers] NAT vs. NoNat authentication > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Hello Bart, > > >> > > >> Looks like UA not receiving 401 unauthorized message from > > SER, that's > > >> why it not resend REGISTER message with calculated digest. > > >> Maybe you have some troubles with NAT on 213.219.137.148? > > >> > > >> Hint: use ngrep with -W byline option (eg: ngrep -W byline > > port 5060 > > >> ) > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Best regards, > > >> > > >> ~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,. > > >> Mike Tkachuk, ph:380-3433-47067 > > >> YES ISP, fx:380-3433-47067 > > >> Valova 17, mike|a|yes.net.ua > > >> Kolomyia, www.yes.net.ua > > >> Ukraine 78200 FWD: 66518 > > >> > > >> 19.07.2004 > > >> ICQ# 57698805 > > >> MSN: mike_tkachuk|a|hotmail.com > > >> ~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,. > > >> > > > > One thing... some routers think that they are very smart > :), so try to > > change port on SER from 5060 to some other ( like: > > port=5070 ) most of routers can be fooled with it. > > > > -- > > Best regards, > > > > ~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,. > > Mike Tkachuk, ph:380-3433-47067 > > YES ISP, fx:380-3433-47067 > > Valova 17, mike|a|yes.net.ua > > Kolomyia, www.yes.net.ua > > Ukraine 78200 FWD: 66518 > > > > 19.07.2004 > > ICQ# 57698805 > > MSN: mike_tkachuk|a|hotmail.com > > ~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Serusers mailing list > serusers(a)lists.iptel.org > http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers >

1 0

RE: Re[4]: [Serusers] NAT vs. NoNat authentication
by dhiraj.2.bhuyan＠bt.com 19 Jul '04

19 Jul '04

Does your NAT gateway have some inbuilt SIP feature? For example - a SIP ALG on it? If yes, try disabling it. Also check if you have set any port forwarding rule on your NAT gateway for port 5060. Dhiraj -----Original Message----- From: serusers-bounces(a)iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org]On Behalf Of Bart Van Daal Sent: 19 July 2004 13:05 To: serusers(a)lists.iptel.org Subject: RE: Re[4]: [Serusers] NAT vs. NoNat authentication Great!! this actually worked. I've changed the port from 5060 to 5070 and now authorization runs fine. Could anyone give a logical explanation for this? thanks again Mike, Bart > -----Original Message----- > From: Mike Tkachuk [mailto:mike@yes.net.ua] > Sent: maandag 19 juli 2004 13:48 > To: Bart Van Daal > Subject: Re[4]: [Serusers] NAT vs. NoNat authentication > > > > Hello Bart, > > Monday, July 19, 2004, 2:27:21 PM, you wrote: > > > BVD> Hi Mike, > > BVD> thanks for the answer and the tip.. > BVD> I can see the sipserver sending multiple '401' to the > router, so I > BVD> guess the router just drops these packets because it > doesn't know > BVD> what to do with them? I now have put the UA in dmz but > that still > BVD> doesn't solve the problem. I'll look further. > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Mike Tkachuk [mailto:mike@yes.net.ua] > >> Sent: maandag 19 juli 2004 11:56 > >> To: Bart Van Daal > >> Subject: Re[2]: [Serusers] NAT vs. NoNat authentication > >> > >> > >> > >> Hello Bart, > >> > >> Looks like UA not receiving 401 unauthorized message from > SER, that's > >> why it not resend REGISTER message with calculated digest. > >> Maybe you have some troubles with NAT on 213.219.137.148? > >> > >> Hint: use ngrep with -W byline option (eg: ngrep -W byline > port 5060 > >> ) > >> > >> -- > >> Best regards, > >> > >> ~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,. > >> Mike Tkachuk, ph:380-3433-47067 > >> YES ISP, fx:380-3433-47067 > >> Valova 17, mike|a|yes.net.ua > >> Kolomyia, www.yes.net.ua > >> Ukraine 78200 FWD: 66518 > >> > >> 19.07.2004 > >> ICQ# 57698805 > >> MSN: mike_tkachuk|a|hotmail.com > >> ~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,. > >> > > One thing... some routers think that they are very smart :), > so try to change port on SER from 5060 to some other ( like: > port=5070 ) most of routers can be fooled with it. > > -- > Best regards, > > ~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,. > Mike Tkachuk, ph:380-3433-47067 > YES ISP, fx:380-3433-47067 > Valova 17, mike|a|yes.net.ua > Kolomyia, www.yes.net.ua > Ukraine 78200 FWD: 66518 > > 19.07.2004 > ICQ# 57698805 > MSN: mike_tkachuk|a|hotmail.com > ~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,. > _______________________________________________ Serusers mailing list serusers(a)lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers

1 0

[Serusers] SEMS instead of CC-Diversion
by Steve Blair 19 Jul '04

19 Jul '04

Hello: I have been trying to get the CC-Diversion header working so our proxy can interface with our existing Octel voice mail system. Due to a series of incompatibilities between Cisco and Verizon's DMS100 I have been forced to give up. I'd like to revisit SEMS as an alternative. I have SER and SEMS both installed and running but I am at a loss for how to forward an unanswered call to SEMS after N rings. Can some please explain this? My first attempt to use the existing failure route block generated several of the following messages. Jul 7 12:58:28 ser: parse error (642,19-20): Command cannot be used in the block Thanks,Steve

2 2

← Newer
1
...
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
...
45
Older →

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 July 2004