sr-users April 2005

sr-users@lists.kamailio.org

250 participants
697 discussions

by Matt Schulte

Ok, I realized I already assumed your theory :-) This is always returning true, even though the last statement is returning false, the route ultimately is still returning true.. This was just an effort to consolidate code for those of our custs who send by IP (rather than auth). Am I going about this the right way or am I barking up the wrong tree? I just cant seem to get it to work :-( Matt code: route[6] { if lookup("location") { xlog("L_INFO", "LOG: Caught usrloc %mi %rm From <%fu> To <%tu> RURI <%ru>\n"); route(2); break; } if enum_query("blahblah") { xlog("L_INFO", "LOG: Caught ENUM %mi %rm From <%fu> To <%tu> RURI <%ru>\n"); route(2); break; } if (search("(f|From): .*(a)x.x.x.x")) { if (exec_dset("/usr/local/bin/aliases.pl")) { xlog("L_INFO", "LOG: Caught alias %mi %rm From <%fu> To <%tu> RURI <%ru>\n"); route(2); break; } } } -----Original Message----- From: Matt Schulte Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 6:03 PM To: marian.dumitru(a)voice-sistem.ro Cc: serusers(a)lists.iptel.org Subject: RE: [Serusers] if routeXX fails.. I see, that makes perfect sense :-).. So I just might need to flip around my "if" to get it to work. -----Original Message----- From: Marian Dumitru [mailto:marian.dumitru@voice-sistem.ro] Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 5:10 PM To: Matt Schulte Cc: serusers(a)lists.iptel.org Subject: Re: [Serusers] if routeXX fails.. Hi Matt, Basically you can do that, but be very careful since the return code of a route is the return code of the *last* command executed inside the route - and break always returns true! Best regards, Marian Matt Schulte wrote: > Is it possible to do this? or is it bad practice, I'm assuming the > "extra" route would have to return an error code to show a > nonpositive? I coulda swore I got this to work awhile back. > > if (!route(6)) { > xlog("L_INFO", "NOTICE: blah <%ru> sending 404\n"); > sl_send_reply("404", "Not Found"); > break; > } else { > # Else route6 ran another route and break > break; > } > -- Voice System http://www.voice-system.ro _______________________________________________ Serusers mailing list serusers(a)lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers

19 years, 4 months

Re: [Serusers] BYE records for mysql

by Marian Dumitru

Hi Barry, try something like this: record_route(); # loose-route processing if (loose_route()) { if (method=="BYE") { setflag(1); setflag(2); } t_relay(); break; }; # account completed transactions via syslog setflag(1); setflag(2); Best regards, Marian Barry Murphy wrote: > This is what I have in my route {} > > record_route(); > # loose-route processing > if (loose_route()) { > t_relay(); > break; > }; > > > # account completed transactions via syslog > setflag(1); > setflag(2); > > Barry > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Marian Dumitru" <marian.dumitru(a)voice-sistem.ro> > To: "Klaus Darilion" <klaus.mailinglists(a)pernau.at> > Cc: "Barry Murphy" <barry(a)unix.co.nz>; <serusers(a)lists.iptel.org> > Sent: Friday, April 22, 2005 10:07 AM > Subject: Re: [Serusers] BYE records for mysql > > > >>Hi Barry, >> >>Also make sure you do proper record_route() and sequential requests as >>BYEs hits your proxy. >> >>Best regards, >>Marian >> >>Klaus Darilion wrote: >> >>>Make sure that the BYE request hits the setflag(accountingflag) command. >>>Often BYEs are processed by the loose_route block. >>> >>>regards, >>>klaus >>> >>>Barry Murphy wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Hey guys, >>>> >>>>I don't seem to get BYE records from SER being sent to mysql, I get >>>>INVITE >>>>and ACK. Without BYE I can't see who terminated the call, caller or >>>>callee, >>>>and I can't determin the duration of the call. >>>> >>>>Any ideas? >>>> >>>>Thanks >>>>Barry >> >> >>-- >>Voice System >>http://www.voice-system.ro >> > > -- Voice System http://www.voice-system.ro

19 years, 4 months

RE: [Serusers] Question regarding *98, *67 etc.

by Matt Schulte

Better yet, does anyone have a Howto for feature codes? That would be neato keen.. I haven't touched avp yet and would like a crash course. I saw the "howto"'s on someones website, it's just the man pages :P Matt -----Original Message----- From: Elena Ramona Modroiu [mailto:ramona@voice-system.ro] Sent: Friday, April 22, 2005 5:44 PM To: Dave Cc: serusers(a)lists.iptel.org Subject: Re: [Serusers] Question regarding *98, *67 etc. You could you a new reply code from classes 4xx or 5xx (these two look more appropriate, although you can use a 6xx reply too -- see chapter 21 in RFC3261 about reply codes) with a special reason phrase (Call forwarding enabled). Many phones display the reason phrase and that should help the caller to understand what happened. A nicer way, imo, is to redirect the call to an announcement server that plays a confirmation message. Ramona Dave wrote: >I am using avpops to allow services such as >call-forwarding, dnd, etc. I want to allow the users >to be able to enter sequences such as *982223333, >implying that he wants call forwarding enabled and the >number to forward to is 2223333. > >Question: Once SER gets the INVITE and stores the >number to forward in an AVP, what response should SER >send back to the UA? It cannot be 200 OK. I would like >to send a response that basically displays "Call >forwarding enabled" and ends the transaction. > >Thanks in advance > >__________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around >http://mail.yahoo.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

19 years, 4 months

[Serusers] Confusion about terminology vis-a-vis AVP

by Dave

Reading AVP documentation is leading to some confusion - AVP is an attribute-value-pair. When we use the terminology "name of an AVP", does it refer to a name (e.g. i:34) that refers to an Attribute-Value-pair OR is the "AVP name" the attribute itself in the Attribute-Value-Pair. Thanks in advance __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

19 years, 4 months

[Serusers] Question regarding *98, *67 etc.

by Dave

I am using avpops to allow services such as call-forwarding, dnd, etc. I want to allow the users to be able to enter sequences such as *982223333, implying that he wants call forwarding enabled and the number to forward to is 2223333. Question: Once SER gets the INVITE and stores the number to forward in an AVP, what response should SER send back to the UA? It cannot be 200 OK. I would like to send a response that basically displays "Call forwarding enabled" and ends the transaction. Thanks in advance __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

19 years, 4 months

[Serusers] AVPops: ERROR:avops:fixup_pushto_avp: bad param 1; expected : $[ruri|hdr_name|..]

by Martin Koenig

Hello, SER complains about the following error on startup: ERROR:avops:fixup_pushto_avp: bad param 1; expected : $[ruri|hdr_name|..] The corresponding line in ser.cfg is avp_pushto("P-Asserted-Identity/request","s:p-asserted-identity"); Any ideas what is going wrong here? Version is rel_0_9_0. With best regards, Martin

19 years, 4 months

RE: [Serusers] Authentication & MediaProxy

by info＠beeplove.com

Hello List: Are you guys taking any authentication measure to allow access on MediaProxy? Thanks, Mohammad Sorry, forgot to add a subject line, :p -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ .

19 years, 5 months

[Serusers] (no subject)

by info＠beeplove.com

Hello List: Are you guys taking any authentication measure to allow access on MediaProxy? Thanks, Mohammad -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ .

19 years, 5 months

FW: [Serusers] calls between UA´s behind same NAT using nathelper/rtpproxy

by jimmy

-----Original Message----- From: jimmy [mailto:jimmy_huang@uni.com.tw] Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 10:01 AM To: 'rrisco(a)millicom.net.pe' Subject: RE: [Serusers] calls between UA´s behind same NAT using nathelper/rtpproxy Hi Rafael: It seems has two way to meet your requirement (1)use external script http://lists.iptel.org/pipermail/serusers/2005-February/015477.html (2)use avpops module http://www.voice-system.ro/docs/avpops/ Hope it's useful ... Jimmy -----Original Message----- From: serusers-bounces(a)iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org] On Behalf Of Rafael J. Risco G.V. Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 2:22 AM To: serusers(a)lists.iptel.org Subject: [Serusers] calls between UA´s behind same NAT using nathelper/rtpproxy Hi I would like to know if its possible to comunicate SIP Clients betwen them when they are behind the same nat, I am using Nathelper/RTPProxy... thanks Rafael -- rrgv _______________________________________________ Serusers mailing list serusers(a)lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers

19 years, 5 months

RE: [Serusers] Bug # 2925

by Jiri Kuthan

I received questions for more detailed explanation, so here it is: branch value serves as transaction id, which (among others) differentiates retransmission of the same request from new requests. From RFC3261's standpoint, ACK for a 200 (as opposed to a [3-6]xx ACK) is a separate transaction, i.e., a different branch value is adequate. In case people do keep asking: it is really so, and receivers MUST be able to deal with ACK branch different from branch in INVITE. Let's think of a proxy that does not record-route and introduced branch 1234 to "its" Via. ACK coming later directly to UAS includes UAC's branch which is different from proxy's branch. It may or may not be the same as UAC's INVITE branch but it is different from what UAS sees. -jiri At 12:44 AM 4/20/2005, Darryl H. Thomas wrote: >-----Original Message----- >From: Jiri Kuthan [mailto:jiri@iptel.org] >Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 2:23 PM >To: Darryl H. Thomas; serusers(a)lists.iptel.org >Subject: Re: [Serusers] Bug # 2925 > >The bug report is invalid, ignore it. branch=0 in ACK to a 200 >is perfectly valid according to RFC3261. Your termination provider >must be using a buggy devices. > >-jiri > >At 07:04 PM 4/19/2005, Darryl H. Thomas wrote: >>Hello everyone, >> >>I was wondering whether anyone knew what was going on with the >following >>bug: >>http://developer.berlios.de/bugs/?func=detailbug&bug_id=2925&group_id=4 >80 >> >>For those not wanting to follow the links, this is a bug submitted by >>someone back in December wherein ser puts 'branch=0' in the Via header >it >>creates for an ACK to a 200 OK Invite response. >> >>I haven't seen any activity related to this, and it's affecting >>interoperability with one of our termination providers. >> >>0.9.0 users, have you seen the same problem?? >> >>Cheers, >>Darryl >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Serusers mailing list >>serusers(a)lists.iptel.org >>http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers > >-- >Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/ -- Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/

19 years, 5 months

← Newer
1
...
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
...
70
Older →

Jump to page:

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 April 2005