sr-users September 2005

sr-users@lists.kamailio.org

231 participants
507 discussions

by Alexandre Aractingi

Hi all, I'm trying to use RTPproxy (CVS) and SER to enable locally-routed endpoints to talk to an external public gateway. When a call comes from the external gateway, the SDP in the INVITE gets rewritten properly with SER's IP address, but then when my phone hangs off, the SDP in the 200 OK doesn't get rewritten, so an RFC1918 IP address is passed to the external gateway (so I get no audio). I'm using nathelper with: modparam("nathelper", "rtpproxy_sock", "unix:/var/run/rtpproxy.sock") and for my tests I put "force_rtp_proxy()" at the very beginning of the routing logic in order to make sure it gets invoked. But the SDP in the 200 OK is not rewritten no matter what. Is this a know issue? Is there a known workaround? Thanks in advance for any help, -- Alexandre Aractingi <aaractingi(a)libertysurf.fr>

18 years, 7 months

[Serusers] cisco 7905G

by Alberto

Hi, I have the next scheme: 7905G ------- NAT ------- Internet ------ SER+mediaproxy When the 7905G sends a INVITE the ser responds: Status: 407 Proxy Authentication Required. This is right, but the destination port this packet not is right because the ser sends the packet with destination port 5060 (private port) and not the (public port). If I open this port all it is right, I do not want to open no port. This single problem happens to me with 7905G (no linksys, no X-Ten, ...). I do not understand what it is happening. Thanks for your aid. -- Alberto

18 years, 7 months

RE: [Serusers] Restriction on port number??

by pankaj.munjal＠wipro.com

Hi, Yes, I've set the SIP proxy address as <proxy-IP>:7065 - Pankaj. -----Original Message----- From: sip [mailto:sip@arcdiv.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2005 8:32 PM To: Pankaj Munjal (WT01 - Voice & Next Generation Networks); serusers(a)lists.iptel.org Subject: Re: [Serusers] Restriction on port number?? Is x-lite set to use your proxy:7065 ? There's no restriction as far as I know. N. On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 20:17:58 +0530, pankaj.munjal wrote > Hi everyone, > > I had a basic question about SER. > Is there a restriction that we have to bring up SER on port number 5060 only? > > When I tried changing the port number in the ser config file, ser comes up normally, but it doesn't answer the REGISTER message from the UA. > I am using XLite as a UA and bringing up the ser on port 7065. > > Any pointers as to what can be reason for this? > > Cheers, > > Pankaj Munjal > Automation - Nortel Networks > Wipro Technologies, Bangalore. > ESN : 6-877-5666 > PBX: 080- 28520408, Extn:- 83265 > > > Confidentiality Notice > > The information contained in this electronic message and any attachments to this message are intended > for the exclusive use of the addressee(s) and may contain confidential or privileged information. If > you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender at Wipro or Mailadmin(a)wipro.com immediately > and destroy all copies of this message and any attachments. > Confidentiality Notice The information contained in this electronic message and any attachments to this message are intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s) and may contain confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender at Wipro or Mailadmin(a)wipro.com immediately and destroy all copies of this message and any attachments.

18 years, 7 months

[Serusers] Restriction on port number??

by pankaj.munjal＠wipro.com

Hi everyone, I had a basic question about SER. Is there a restriction that we have to bring up SER on port number 5060 only? When I tried changing the port number in the ser config file, ser comes up normally, but it doesn't answer the REGISTER message from the UA. I am using XLite as a UA and bringing up the ser on port 7065. Any pointers as to what can be reason for this? Cheers, Pankaj Munjal Automation - Nortel Networks Wipro Technologies, Bangalore. ESN : 6-877-5666 PBX: 080- 28520408, Extn:- 83265 Confidentiality Notice The information contained in this electronic message and any attachments to this message are intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s) and may contain confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender at Wipro or Mailadmin(a)wipro.com immediately and destroy all copies of this message and any attachments.

18 years, 7 months

[Serusers] Database queries?

by sip

I'm attempting to figure out how to use AVPops to grab data from the calls_forwarding database table so I can avoid having to write my own module to handle that sort of thing, and I can avoid doing what I'm CURRENTLY doing which is using a pretty hideous exec_msg SQL query hack. I've run into a snag that I can't figure a way around.... In the calls_forwarding table, I have these fields used in this fashion: username == username domain == domain uri_re == username@domain information (for use in a couple of ways) purpose == purpose for this entry (callblock, callfwd, screening, etc) action == action to take (for callblock, could be reply or relay, etc) param1 == option for the action above param2 == additional option So... if I have a call block entry, it would be like this: username = bob domain = mydomain.com uri_re = motherinlaw(a)another.domain.com purpose = callblock action = reply param1 = 486 param2 = "Busy" The logic would be along the lines of, when a call comes in for bob(a)mydomain.com, I check to see if he has any callblock entries. If so, I check those to see if any match the From user. If there's a match, take the action in action (in this case reply with 486 - Busy... could be relay to voicemail, etc). The problem I'm having is in the grabbing of all the data from the DB and comparing it to the right values. For instance, with this avpops query avp_db_load("$ruri/username", "$urire/$urire_scheme"); # Load the urire column for this and check to see if # it matches the $from address if(avp_check("$urire", "eq/$from/I")) { send reply... take action... etc. } I'm calling from the number motherinlaw(a)another.domain.com. If I use the above, the avp_check test fails. If I put if(avp_check("$urire", "eq/motherinlaw(a)another.domain.com/I")) { send reply... take action... etc. } Then the test succeeds and the appropriate action is taken. Any guesses as to what I'm missing here... why the test is failing when I use the $from variable for AVPops, but not when I hard-code the $from address into the test (which implies to me that it's grabbing the right data from the database, but there's an issue in either the $from variable or the comparison statement)? I'd love a little shove in the right direction. I thought about writing a module that returned what I need without the need for complex logical paths, but my C is pretty rusty, and I'm trying to save myself the hair-pulling. :) N.

18 years, 7 months

[Serusers] new voip service [ot] FYI

by Iqbal

I know I know not supposed to advertise, but this is not my company its dixons, a 1400 retail unit in the UK, will have vonage running for cover in the UK http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/09/27/dixons_freetalk/ £79.99 includes hardware and unlimited calls to UK landline for a year..... plusnet £3.99 for 3500 mins per month (but need there bandwidth) and ipclouds.co.uk (£69.99) Iqbal

18 years, 7 months

[Serusers] SEMS+IVR

by Abdul Lateef

Hi all, I wanted configure IVR with SEMS. I have a samall question. Is SEMS need SER, or SEMS can work with another SIP GK. i have already SIP GK and i wanted to use SEMS priticular for IVR. Please let me know if SEMS can work withou SER? Yours, Abdul Lateef Computer Programmer HATIF COM Mob: +974 - 5405022 Tel: +974 - 4883068 ICQ: 276994704 YM!: abdul_zu Fax: +974 - 4883063 Doha Qatar http://www.hatif.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com

18 years, 7 months

[Serusers] Seperate SER and Oubound Proxy

by Kevin Brennan

We would like to use STUN as preferred NAT traversal method but for those situations where STUN does not work we would offer an outbound proxy (configured in user agent). We would like to keep the NAT traversal proxy completely separate from SER. I wonder has anybody implemented this ? how ? and any other suggestions/feedback. Br /Kevin Brennan.

18 years, 7 months

RE: [Serusers] is SER ( 0.9.4) 100% 3GPP SIP call flow compliant ?

by Ashish Gilotra

Hi Klaus Thanks for answer. What is missing in SER which makes it non-compliant to 3GPP IMS call flow ? Br Ashish -----Original Message----- From: Klaus Darilion [mailto:klaus.mailinglists@pernau.at] Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2005 2:51 PM To: ashish gilotra Cc: serusers(a)lists.iptel.org Subject: Re: [Serusers] is SER ( 0.9.4) 100% 3GPP SIP call flow compliant ? ashish gilotra wrote: > Hi > > We are evaluating SER for our purpose. > > We need to use 3GPP SIP call flows. > > Is SER compliant ? No. regards klaus _______________________________________________ Serusers mailing list serusers(a)lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers

18 years, 7 months

[Users] Problem with ACK's (branch=0)

by Rodrigo P. Telles

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi folks, I've been experiencing some troubles with ACK's with branch=0. I found a thread about it but I didn't find a 'solution' folowing the thread. http://mail.iptel.org/pipermail/serdev/2005-April/004296.html Can some one point me to the correct answer for that question? Thanks in advance. - -- ============================================ Rodrigo P. Telles <telles(a)devel.it> TI Manager Devel-IT - http://www.devel.it ============================================ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFDJbvNiLK8unYgEMQRAoATAJwJSLGiN1/XuAUk2aVm4rm5oGD00ACfYJf0 XbL8Vv4unK6U3j974UOtYU0= =gZzI -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

18 years, 7 months

← Newer
1
...
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
...
51
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 September 2005