November 2005 - sr-users

[Serusers] Response Code 408 = "Request Timeout" or "ISUP 18 no user responding"
by Dmitry Isakbayev 03 Nov '05

03 Nov '05

Hi, I am trying to figure out how to interpret response code 408 in a failure_route block. It seem that there is a couple of different cases. If the code means that a PSTN gateway is not responding (the tm's fr_timer has expired), I want to try another PSTN gateway. On the other hand, if the code means that the user is not responding (the tm's fr_inv_timer has expired), I want to stop trying and forward the code to the UAC. How can I tell what response code 408 actually means? Thanks! Dmitry

1 0

[Serusers] P-Asserted-Identity
by Atle Samuelsen 02 Nov '05

02 Nov '05

Hi guys, and girls, Male and Female, do anybody know if anybody has made a implimentation of 3325 for ser? or, is anybody makeing some form of support for this? -Atle

3 8

[Serusers] SER behind a router
by Ángel Gómez 02 Nov '05

02 Nov '05

Hi, I am trilling to make SER workin conectec to internet via a router, the router only forwards the mensages to SER, the messages who go to the 5060 port. With this config i get SER working well locally, but when i try to register from the outside i can't. For more info I'm using sipsak for testing, and the version of ser is 0.9.3. Last thing: P L E A S E H E L P

2 1

[Users] re: ISP charging for voip
by Yair Hakak 02 Nov '05

02 Nov '05

hello all, not sure if everyone here is familiar with the madison river case: http://informationweek.smallbizpipeline.com/60405214<http://www.tmcnet.com/tmcnet/articles/2005/voip-call-blocking-fcc-madison-r…> not exactly the same thing, because they were blocking instead of charging (they are a small rural CLEC who, like almost all phone companies, charge less than cost for access and make their profit on minutes, and voip takes away their minutes), but the principle is the same, and the FCC nailed them. However, meanwhile the FCC chairman has changed, and who knows if the general way of thinking is still the same... at very least, it's good precendent. as someone who works for a telecom regulator (i wont tell you which one and where) i'd be very interested in what happens around the world. are there countries where ISP's are not allowed to filter or otherwise interfere in traffic? I know there are companies that sell traffic filtering systems to ISP's so they can prioritize and/or slow the performance of certain customers, certain apps (filesharing and the like), etc. it's relatively trivial to configure such systems to introduce massive packet loss to anything on port 5060, for example, or deprioritize UDP packets, or things of that nature. -yair

1 0

RE: [Serusers] voip charging by ISP's
by Vitaly Nikolaev 02 Nov '05

02 Nov '05

I believe It is unlawful act and there must be some regulation, I am not talking here that it will become known very well and this provider will lost some customers... and some other provider will claim that they voip friendly and get some more customer on it :-) ________________________________ From: serusers-bounces(a)iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org] On Behalf Of Cesc Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 1:32 PM To: Nils Ohlmeier Cc: serusers(a)lists.iptel.org; Roger Lewau; serusers-bounces(a)lists.iptel.org; Iqbal Subject: Re: [Serusers] voip charging by ISP's Well, i think the ISP may care if they are also providing similar bussiness. They won't probably be able to charge neither the voip user or voip provider, but they can do some harm. Identifying the rtp streams and sip signalling is not sooo difficult ... then, block a few messages, add delay and jitter to the rtp (or udp in general ...) and you've got a bad service, aparently coming from the voip provider. There is software to detect and do all the above (one was presented in VON this fall) ... There was an article in IEEE Spectrum (sept, october, nov ... can't remember). And all the tricks Nils mentions ... hey, maybe the advanced user, but my mom, no way! And then you need software that supports all those tricks ... that is even further away. In this sense, i think carriers have the winning side ... Regards, Cesc On 11/2/05, Nils Ohlmeier <lists(a)ohlmeier.org> wrote: On Wednesday 02 November 2005 14:28, Iqbal wrote: > I agree, I mean the next step would be to charge ebay and yahoo per > transaction, just wondering how easy it would be for ISP to setup a > monitor and a billing model on this I think the ISP should not care what it is transporting. The snail mail also does not look into what they are devlivering to charge you differently (except express delivery but thats another story). As soon as an ISP starts to look into the traffic from the user, the users will invent uncounted ways of fooling the ISP (use non-standard ports; use standard ports for the "wrong" service; use proxies; encrypt the traffic; and finally combine all this). All I can say to the ISP: happy debugging! And in the end I would be interested in how a court would judge about the outcoming bills (who has to prove what?) :-) Nils _______________________________________________ Serusers mailing list serusers(a)lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers

1 0

[Serusers] Manipulate To-Header
by Stefan Prelle 02 Nov '05

02 Nov '05

Hi all, is it possible to manipulate the From-Header (similiar to strip() and prefix()), before relaying a INVITE message? If so, how do I do this? Regards, Stefan

2 1

[Users] voip charging by ISP's
by Iqbal 02 Nov '05

02 Nov '05

Hi i was looking into a model where ISP may charge (SBC is already thiking of charging Vonage :-)), now if an ISP wanted to charge, all they would need is to extract the INVITE, BYE and all the stuff in the middle, to do some billing per VoIP provider sending traffic on there network, is anyone aware of any sniffers which could do this not from a proxy, but from the network level at a ISP end. Iqbal

5 7

[Users] TLS packages for debian unstable
by Bogdan-Andrei Iancu 02 Nov '05

02 Nov '05

Hi all, i just committed specs for debian to generate both tls and non-tls packages - thanks to Klaus for support ;). I also generated the packages for debian unstable - see : http://openser.org/pub/openser/latest/packages/deb-unstable/ in the next days I hope packages for different versions of debian will be uploaded. regards, bogdan

1 0

[Serusers] Finding IP address of VoIP gateway sending the 5xx
by Ramin Nikaeen 02 Nov '05

02 Nov '05

Valued Friends, I am trying to process 5xx response codes and to resend the INVITE to an alternative VoIP gateway upon receiving an 5xx response from a VoIP gateway. So, I need to somehow figure out the IP address of the VoIP gateway from which SER receives the 5xx response. I tested and I receive 503 response codes only in onreply_route and not in failure_route at all. The 503 response does not include any "contact" fields that Would indicate the IP address of the VoIP gateway from which The 503 response is being received at SER. Do you know how I can figure out the IP address of the VoIP gateway from which SER is receiving the 503 response?! Thanks ramin

2 1

[Serusers] SIP/2.0 477 error on sending to next hop occurred
by rajesh volluru 02 Nov '05

02 Nov '05

hi can anyone explain me why i get the error mentioned in below trace. Please let me know how can i resolve this. SIP/2.0 477 Unfortunately error on sending to next hop occurred (477/TM) Call-ID: 21b297bc85242e507848f6c297cf4c3f(a)69.229.23.54 CSeq: 1 REGISTER From: "test11" <sip:test11@iptel.org:5060;transport=tcp>;tag=6626965 To: "test11" <sip:test11@iptel.org:5060;transport=tcp>;tag=321967ba5deb3e7f484a2df055818800-a111 Via: SIP/2.0/TCP 69.229.23.54:5060;branch=z9hG4bK67a6e74fa0f95b090b70ff5d3d969e73;rport=6719 Server: Sip EXpress router (0.9.0udpfifo (i386/linux)) Warning: 392 195.37.77.99:5060 "Noisy feedback tells: pid=17793 req_src_ip=69.229.23.54 req_src_port=6719 in_uri=sip:69.229.23.57:5060;transport=tcp out_uri=sip:69.229.23.57:5060;transport=tcp via_cnt==1" Content-Length: 0 Thanks Rajesh --------------------------------- Enjoy this Diwali with Y! India Click here

3 2