Hi,
I'm receiving 478 status for a REGISTER sent to SER Proxy. I'm sending Register request URI in the form of domain name. But 478 status code as given by SER is an invalid response as per RFC 3261.
When does SER responds with status code 478?
(Below is SIP register request packet and response packet)
Is it configuration problem or any thing wrong in my packet?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Register Request to SER:-->
Request-Line: REGISTER sip:ser.testlab.com:5060 SIP/2.0
Method: REGISTER
Resent Packet: False
Message Header
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.3.180:5060
From: <sip:1801@ser.testlab.com:5060>;tag=425215125
SIP from address: sip:1801@ser.testlab.com:5060
SIP tag: 425215125
To: <sip:1801@ser.testlab.com:5060>
SIP to address: sip:1801@ser.testlab.com:5060
Call-ID: 1002330992425(a)ser.testlab.com
CSeq: 1 REGISTER
Contact: <sip:1801@192.168.3.180:5060>;expires=60
max-forwards: 70
Content-Length: 0
Response from SER: <--
Status-Line: SIP/2.0 478 Unresolveable destination (478/TM)
Status-Code: 478
Resent Packet: False
Message Header
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.3.180:5060
From: <sip:1801@ser.testlab.com:5060>;tag=425215125
SIP from address: sip:1801@ser.testlab.com:5060
SIP tag: 425215125
To:
<sip:1801@ser.testlab.com:5060>;tag=a6a1c5f60faecf035a1ae5b6e96e979a-d8b4
SIP to address: sip:1801@ser.testlab.com:5060
SIP tag: a6a1c5f60faecf035a1ae5b6e96e979a-d8b4
Call-ID: 1002330992425(a)ser.testlab.com
CSeq: 1 REGISTER
Server: Sip EXpress router (0.8.14 (i386/linux))
Content-Length: 0
Warning: 392 192.168.3.198:5060 "Noisy feedback tells: pid=2361
req_src_ip=192.168.3.180 req_src_port=5060
in_uri=sip:ser.testlab.com:5060 out_uri=sip:ser.testlab.com:5060 via_cnt==1"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks and regards,
naresh
Hi
Wow this fight is better than Mike Tysons..not that it took much
beating...but as a user I felt I may as well give my $0.02 worth.
I have used alot of opensource SW in my time, to build some great
businesses, and in return helped bring the internet to a whole lot of
people who would never have used it. From the days of sendmail and
apache, to msql and mysql, perl and php...its all added to this virtual
world we call the Internet.
Since my development days are way past me, I cant really contribute in
code, hence I'll do a little in my own way, together with the numerous
others who have helped me along the way....
This argument (which is exactly what it is), boils down to moving fast
or keeping stability. In this list there are both types of users, and I
think both are needed, if we dont move fast, then SER will come to a
standstill, but if we move too quickly, and dont get new users problems
resolved like basic setup (which Greger et al at doing) then we will be
short of new users...who always come with new ideas. Whether the
solution is in a fork or not, is irrelevant here, because having core
developers not working together just aint good. Judging by opensource in
other projects, I think the key is too keep it as one (or so it should
seem to the casual observer), and from there you could have two threads,
one where the fast paced users would be able to pull from and test, and
the other more safer stable environment. Let the user decide what he
wishes to opt for, but dont make it look as if there are two separate
projects going on.
The logistics of this I havent a clue on, but I am sure some on this
list do, 2 URL's etc doesnt make much difference, except as Klaus
pointed out I've got too mailing lists, and if I try to reply to user
questions I know I will only really have time for one list, and you will
just get alot of cross posts happening.
If the core developers do not pull together, then how can the community.
Maybe split the core team into two (which is what is happening), one who
can work on stable releases, and one on a more faster release...slightly
less stable , eventually the latter one being sucked into the former.
Also I think there is a call to allow others to submit modules....and
these should not always have to be approved, I think if approved they go
into stable ser, else users should be able to use them at there own
risk. If you look at asterisk you will see lots of software developed
for it, and modules etc, and I am sure not all these are approved, but
what it helps do is to spread SER.
Whether we have two sites 3 or even more, unless the core developers are
happy, this wont work, guys you gotta sort it out, else SER and VoIP
will not reach its full potential...a plea from a user :-)
Iqbal
Hello, i've got accounting from radius,
do you know any opensource or well know algorithms (may be bash, C or mysql
) to calculate the prefix and be sure that the calcluation is sure (having
the prefix tables in the CSV or any other format)?
--
Pozdrawiam,
Wojciech Ziniewicz
Optocomp sp.z.o.o, www.optocomp.pl
mailto: wojtekz(a)optocomp.pl
+48(0)691031535
And the looser is......
Harry!
Samuel.
P.D. It's nothing personal, I took you as an example of user, I hope that it does not offend you.
Unclassified.
>>> harry gaillac <gaillacharry(a)yahoo.fr> 06/15/05 12:08PM >>>
Either voice-sistem or iptelorg.com !?
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
From: Daniel-Constantin Mierla
Business is the motivation for all SER users, I do not
think that is
someone that do stuff with SER just because he has no
other thing to do
-- many work for companies that use SER, others do
studies and use ser
for projects... So the business behind is the engine
for development.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Harry
___________________________________________________________________________
Appel audio GRATUIT partout dans le monde avec le nouveau Yahoo! Messenger
Téléchargez cette version sur http://fr.messenger.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
Hi SER community,
there are almost two years from the last official SER release and things
do not promise too much right now. Not only that the progress stuck
somewhere on the way (rel 0.9.0 was started more than half a year ago),
but even any attempt to push thing forward seems to be denied - I tried
along with Daniel to push the release, but seems that not everybody
shares our and comunity's interest regarding the public part of SER -
upgrades were rolled back, new software contributions haven't found
their way in (like TLS and other new modules), modules maintained by
other developers are inaccessible.
Unfortunately this is not a good environment if we what to have some
future progress for SER. And this is the main reason for starting a new
project called OpenSER - http://www.openser.org .
It's called open because its most important attribute is its opening to
new ideas and contributions, fast developing and more involvement of the
comunity. Along with quality, the progress is the main concern.
We will continue to support and develop the SER project as much as so
far and as much as possible, but OpenSER will give the liberty for more.
OpenSER serves the interest of all SER users and will not change its
purpose - as a fact I have the pleasure to announce its first release -
OpenSER 0.9.4. The web site offers a comprehensive listing of new
features and fixes - http://www.openser.org/index.php#features. For
people already familiar to SER 0.9.3, going to
http://www.openser.org/diffs-0.9.0.php will be more helpful.
Also the documentation (http://www.openser.org/index.php#docs) will help
for a better understanding of this release. For any additional question
please use the project mailing lists:
users(a)openser.org - dedicated for general purpose discussions about
OpenSER stable releases.
devel(a)openser.org - dedicated for discussions related to development
version and next steps of OpenSER.
bogdan
Either voice-sistem or iptelorg.com !?
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
From: Daniel-Constantin Mierla
Business is the motivation for all SER users, I do not
think that is
someone that do stuff with SER just because he has no
other thing to do
-- many work for companies that use SER, others do
studies and use ser
for projects... So the business behind is the engine
for development.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Harry
___________________________________________________________________________
Appel audio GRATUIT partout dans le monde avec le nouveau Yahoo! Messenger
Téléchargez cette version sur http://fr.messenger.yahoo.com
I am trying to debug my ser.cfg and so have inserted log statements in it.
However they are not appearing in the messages file. I'm sure that there's
something very basic I'm doing incorrectly. Relevant bits from my ser.cfg
follows:
debug=8
fork=no
log_stderror=yes
...
route{
log(1,"My dog has fleas/n");
...
Any suggestions greatfully received.
Regards
Cameron
Dear All,
I know that I can dump a request to a file using :
exec_msg("cat >> /usr/local/sbin/log.txt");
How do I get a dump of the response?
I try this and it won't run:
onreply_route[1] {
if (status == "200" || status=="202") {
....
...
exec_msg("cat >> /usr/local/sbin/log.txt");
Is there a way that I could log the response to a file.
Thank for any help available.
Regards,
TC Chan
Dear Core Developers, Contributors, and Users,
I am sure there are many users of SER who now ask the question: What the h... is going and how will this impact SER and how I use SER? I will try to contribute with my interpretation of all this, hopefully to the benefit of those less familiar with SER. I ask you to bare with me, this email is a bit longer than the norm...
In open source development, everybody is equal and on the surface have the same motives, but in cases like this, it's useful to know where people are coming from. I, myself, work for a company that uses SER as a component in one of its products.
My interests in SER are twofold:
1. The more features and the better open source SER gets, the better for my company
2. The more carrier-grade features (stability, robustness, and scalability), the better
When I first started using SER, I realised that #1 was held down by a very high threshold for first use + a sluggishness to include external contributions into the project. I also saw that there was a lack of some carrier-grade features (like load balancing, monitoring, etc).
So, this caused me to participate in the Getting Started documentation project, as well as to set up http://onsip.org to lower the getting started threshold and facilitate access to information relevant for carrier-grade setups. And I also volunteered to be the administrator of the new experimental directory for SER modules.
Iptelorg.com and Voice System have both established businesses with SER as a core of their business model. Before an open source project gets the momentum (in terms of development community), a company with commercial interests in the open source project is crucial to the development of the project. Once the project gets a life on its own, there will be conflicting interests between the commercial company and the open source project. (Fraunhofer and then) Iptelorg.com has been this company for SER.
Iptelorg.com's business model has included building other components/extending SER and offer this as a carrier-grade platform. Of course, they don't want to submit their commercial code to the public CVS, it's the basis for their revenues. However, when the community gets going, their commercial components start popping up with alternative contributions (like TLS). What to do? The reactions can be:
1. Ignore it
2. Submit own commercial code when there is no other choice
3. Pro-actively push commercial code to the open-source project and continously improve own commercial code
Voice System has a slightly different business model, but also they have their own commercial components and I believe they focus more on enterprises. Do they contribute their commercial code to OpenSER? Of course not, they have exactly the same problems as iptelorg.com, but they need more features (to enterprises), while iptelorg.com needs stability (to carriers).
So, my interpretation of the OpenSER announcement: It's a branch with a different release philosophy, release sooner, bug-fix after release and bring in as much contributions as possible. Daniel-Constantin Mierla states "the SER code maintained by us will go further [...] The cvs was created just to ease the maintainance."
However, the communication, both in the announcement, as well as on the website is another with a language clearly indicating that this is *something different from SER at iptel.org*. To the casual user, this means choosing between two projects and also choosing where to contribute.
(To me, this means that allthough I would love to get new functionality faster, I cannot possibly use the OpenSER project due to my need for testing and stability.)
To the iptelorg.com and Voice System guys: Even though SER originates in your Fraunhofer pet project, SER is no longer yours. Close to 700 people have registered at ONsip.org. There is a large and thriving community of SER users! This gives you, the core developers, a responsibility you didn't have before and you must act accordingly.
Jiri and Bogdan-Andrei: I plead you to talk together and resolve this to the benefit of the *community*, not your individual companies. There is no question that the openser.org website brings additional value to the beginner user (documentation + functionality) and that Jan Janak's release philosophy has been a benefit to those of us who rely on stability. Your indifferences MUST be possible to resolve within the context of the community. Jiri: Be open to how contributions and releases can be handled without sacrificing stability. SER needs contributions and Voice System has a point there! Bogdan-Andrei: Try to figure out how you can resolve this without splitting the community in two projects. You really need the other iptel.org contributors in making your fresh releases stable as fast as possible!
If this only boils down to different release philosophies and how contributions shall be taken into SER, I have the following suggestions:
- Let loose the Voice System guys on releasing new SER versions with new functionality, don't keep functionality in CVS HEAD too long
- However, do as ex. OpenLDAP and state CLEARLY which version is considered stable, make sure that source packages are available for all versions
- If absolutely necessary, keep two sites: iptel.org and openser.org, but please don't communicate that these are two different projects. If the code base is the same, they are not! Ex. have one site for stable releases and one for newer releases.
I will be happy to mediate in the talks if necessary. After all, I'm Norwegian and conflict mediation is one of the few things Norwegians are known for... :-)
Best regards,
Greger
g-)
PS! This open letter has also been posted to http://ONsip.org
