sr-users November 2007

sr-users@lists.kamailio.org

138 participants
249 discussions

[Serusers] SER 0.9.6 "desc_time_order" issue
by Mitya 12 Nov '07

12 Nov '07

Hi Everybody, I would like to set up thefollowing with ser 0.9.6 1) an UAC should be able to register more times with the same q value note: lets say, there is a power outage on the client side and it gets a new IP from the ISP, registers again, the "old" registration has not expired yed, it is still alive, because it did not unreggistered itself 2) when SER calls this UAC, only the most recently registered one should be invited 3) to limit the maximum number of contacts is not possible (I need this feature) From the documentation: ------------------------ ----- CUT ------ 1.3.5. desc_time_order (integer) [...] If set to 1 then all contacts will be ordered in descending modification time order. In this case the most recently updated/created contact will be used. [...] 1.3.3. append_branches (integer) [...] If the parameter is set to 0, only Request-URI will be overwritten with the highest-q rated contact and the rest will be left unprocessed. [...] ----- CUT ------ I also found this thread: ------------------------- http://lists.iptel.org/pipermail/serusers/2003-March/000758.html From Jan: You will have to use modparam("registrar", "append_branches", 0) in your script and after that only the most recently updated/created contact will be used (even if there are many of them). This is exactly what I need !! my relevant config is the following: modparam("usrloc", "db_mode", 1) modparam("registrar", "append_branches", 0) modparam("registrar", "desc_time_order", 1) modparam("registrar", "max_contacts", 50) Sympthom: --------- When I call the UA, always the firstly registered one gets the INVITE, and "desc_time_order" DOES NOT work :( Can sy explain me what should I do now ? Many thanks. Mitya

1 1

[OpenSER-Users] Mediaproxy --help required
by srinivas Antarvedi 12 Nov '07

12 Nov '07

Hello all , i have doubts regarding the mediaproxy do i have to run my openser server on public ip if i need to use the mediaproxy server on the same box as that of openser? -- Srinivas Antarvedi

2 1

Re: [Serusers] R: R: Loadbalancing for interco
by Jiri Kuthan 12 Nov '07

12 Nov '07

I think there is some confusion here ... SER doesn't change contacts by the action referred to bellow. -jiri At 17:54 12/11/2007, Stefano Capitanio wrote: >It is the simplest ser.cfg you can imagine: > > Route { > forward(z.z.z.z,5060); > } > > >The message enter in SER (y.y.y.y) as: > > U x.x.x.x:5060 -> y.y.y.y:5060 > REGISTER sip:213.203.128.126 SIP/2.0. > Via: SIP/2.0/UDP x.x.x.x:5060;rport;branch=z9hG4bKFCDF5014775145F7BBFB33B621BC8BC0. > From: openser <sip:123456102@y.y.y.y>;tag=1540538748. > To: openser <sip:123456102@y.y.y.y>. > Contact: "openser" <sip:123456102@x.x.x.x:5060>. > Call-ID: 23FDB6F533AC4BCF840FD35F34B385FD(a)y.y.y.y. > CSeq: 60558 REGISTER. > Expires: 120. > Max-Forwards: 70. > User-Agent: X-Lite release 1103m. > Content-Length: 0. > >And goes out as: > > U y.y.y.y:5060 -> z.z.z.z:5060 > REGISTER sip:y.y.y.y SIP/2.0. > Via: SIP/2.0/UDP y.y.y.y:5060;branch=0. > Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 195.110.129.41:5060;rport=5060;branch=z9hG4bKFCDF5014775145F7BBFB33B621BC8BC0. > From: openser <sip:123456102@y.y.y.y>;tag=1540538748. > To: openser <sip:123456102@y.y.y.y>. > Contact: "openser" <sip:123456102@y.y.y.y:5060>. > Call-ID: 23FDB6F533AC4BCF840FD35F34B385FD(a)y.y.y.y. > CSeq: 60558 REGISTER. > Expires: 120. > Max-Forwards: 70. > User-Agent: X-Lite release 1103m. > Content-Length: 0. > > > >> -----Messaggio originale----- >> Da: Jiri Kuthan [mailto:jiri@iptel.org] >> Inviato: lunedì 12 novembre 2007 17.41 >> A: Stefano Capitanio; serusers(a)lists.iptel.org >> Oggetto: Re: [Serusers] R: Loadbalancing for interco >> >> I haven't seen your config file, but normally it does not change Contacts. >> It changes contacts if it is configured to deal with NATs. >> >> -jiri >> >> At 17:20 12/11/2007, Stefano Capitanio wrote: >> >Ok, thanks for your answer, I understand your position. >> > >> >Anyway I cannot understand why SER modify the Contact header without any >> instruction about that in the config file...is there any reason concerning >> RFC compliance? >> > >> >Best regards, >> >Stefano >> > >> >> -----Messaggio originale----- >> >> Da: Jiri Kuthan [mailto:jiri@iptel.org] >> >> Inviato: lunedì 12 novembre 2007 17.09 >> >> A: Stefano Capitanio; serusers(a)lists.iptel.org >> >> Oggetto: Re: [Serusers] Loadbalancing for interco >> >> >> >> Well, load-balancing is not easy. To deal with issues like you are >> >> describing, >> >> your best choice is a load-balancer which is capable of working in >> >> transparent >> >> mode. We have such in our intelligence, some work, some less so, let me >> >> know >> >> if you need some intelligence on this. >> >> >> >> -jiri >> >> >> >> At 12:23 12/11/2007, Stefano Capitanio wrote: >> >> >Content-class: urn:content-classes:message >> >> >Content-Type: multipart/alternative; >> >> > boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C8251E.664EA61A" >> >> > >> >> >Hi, >> >> > >> >> >we are trying to do the same with our servers but we have some problem >> >> with registrations: >> >> >it seem that when the REGISTER message pass through SER, the host-part >> of >> >> Contact field is modified with the local address of SER. >> >> >Is it a misconfiguration problem? >> >> >Do you have experience in balancing also the registrations? >> >> > >> >> >Thanks, >> >> >Stefano >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >On Thu, 2007-09-13 at 11:02 +0200, inge wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> Hi all, >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> Is there a way to have something like a loadbalancing on SER for >> >> > >> >> >> outgoing calls ? >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> I want to distribute the calls between two gateways. Ideally, with a >> >> > >> >> >> coefficient (ie. 60% for the first and 40% for the second). >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> Thanks for your support. >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> Adrien .L >> >> >_______________________________________________ >> >> >Serusers mailing list >> >> >Serusers(a)lists.iptel.org >> >> >http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/ >> >_______________________________________________ >> >Serusers mailing list >> >Serusers(a)lists.iptel.org >> >http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers >> >> >> >> -- >> Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/ >_______________________________________________ >Serusers mailing list >Serusers(a)lists.iptel.org >http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers -- Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/

2 1

[OpenSER-Users] testing null AVPs
by Ovidiu Sas 12 Nov '07

12 Nov '07

Hi all, How should we test for non existing AVPs? method 1: is_avp_set("$avp(i:123)") method 2: $(avp(i:123)) != null Both of the above methods are working. Is there a difference between them? If no, then maybe is_avp_set should be deprecated. Regards, Ovidiu Sas

2 1

Re: [Serusers] R: Loadbalancing for interco
by Jiri Kuthan 12 Nov '07

12 Nov '07

I haven't seen your config file, but normally it does not change Contacts. It changes contacts if it is configured to deal with NATs. -jiri At 17:20 12/11/2007, Stefano Capitanio wrote: >Ok, thanks for your answer, I understand your position. > >Anyway I cannot understand why SER modify the Contact header without any instruction about that in the config file...is there any reason concerning RFC compliance? > >Best regards, >Stefano > >> -----Messaggio originale----- >> Da: Jiri Kuthan [mailto:jiri@iptel.org] >> Inviato: lunedì 12 novembre 2007 17.09 >> A: Stefano Capitanio; serusers(a)lists.iptel.org >> Oggetto: Re: [Serusers] Loadbalancing for interco >> >> Well, load-balancing is not easy. To deal with issues like you are >> describing, >> your best choice is a load-balancer which is capable of working in >> transparent >> mode. We have such in our intelligence, some work, some less so, let me >> know >> if you need some intelligence on this. >> >> -jiri >> >> At 12:23 12/11/2007, Stefano Capitanio wrote: >> >Content-class: urn:content-classes:message >> >Content-Type: multipart/alternative; >> > boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C8251E.664EA61A" >> > >> >Hi, >> > >> >we are trying to do the same with our servers but we have some problem >> with registrations: >> >it seem that when the REGISTER message pass through SER, the host-part of >> Contact field is modified with the local address of SER. >> >Is it a misconfiguration problem? >> >Do you have experience in balancing also the registrations? >> > >> >Thanks, >> >Stefano >> > >> > >> >On Thu, 2007-09-13 at 11:02 +0200, inge wrote: >> > >> >> Hi all, >> > >> >> >> > >> >> Is there a way to have something like a loadbalancing on SER for >> > >> >> outgoing calls ? >> > >> >> >> > >> >> I want to distribute the calls between two gateways. Ideally, with a >> > >> >> coefficient (ie. 60% for the first and 40% for the second). >> > >> >> >> > >> >> Thanks for your support. >> > >> >> >> > >> >> Adrien .L >> >_______________________________________________ >> >Serusers mailing list >> >Serusers(a)lists.iptel.org >> >http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers >> >> >> >> -- >> Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/ >_______________________________________________ >Serusers mailing list >Serusers(a)lists.iptel.org >http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers -- Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/

2 1

Re: [Serusers] Loadbalancing for interco
by Jiri Kuthan 12 Nov '07

12 Nov '07

Well, load-balancing is not easy. To deal with issues like you are describing, your best choice is a load-balancer which is capable of working in transparent mode. We have such in our intelligence, some work, some less so, let me know if you need some intelligence on this. -jiri At 12:23 12/11/2007, Stefano Capitanio wrote: >Content-class: urn:content-classes:message >Content-Type: multipart/alternative; > boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C8251E.664EA61A" > >Hi, > >we are trying to do the same with our servers but we have some problem with registrations: >it seem that when the REGISTER message pass through SER, the host-part of Contact field is modified with the local address of SER. >Is it a misconfiguration problem? >Do you have experience in balancing also the registrations? > >Thanks, >Stefano > > >On Thu, 2007-09-13 at 11:02 +0200, inge wrote: > >> Hi all, > >> > >> Is there a way to have something like a loadbalancing on SER for > >> outgoing calls ? > >> > >> I want to distribute the calls between two gateways. Ideally, with a > >> coefficient (ie. 60% for the first and 40% for the second). > >> > >> Thanks for your support. > >> > >> Adrien .L >_______________________________________________ >Serusers mailing list >Serusers(a)lists.iptel.org >http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers -- Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/

2 1

[OpenSER-Users] Digest Authentication and nonce count
by Klaus Darilion 12 Nov '07

12 Nov '07

Hi! the ..._challenge() functions support adding the qop=auth to the challenge. This will cause the SIP client to use the nonce count in the digest response. Is this nonce count actually used in openser? I guess this would require stateful handling of nonce and nonce-count. regards klaus

2 2

[Serusers] Loadbalancing for interco
by Stefano Capitanio 12 Nov '07

12 Nov '07

Hi, we are trying to do the same with our servers but we have some problem with registrations: it seem that when the REGISTER message pass through SER, the host-part of Contact field is modified with the local address of SER. Is it a misconfiguration problem? Do you have experience in balancing also the registrations? Thanks, Stefano On Thu, 2007-09-13 at 11:02 +0200, inge wrote: > Hi all, > > Is there a way to have something like a loadbalancing on SER for > outgoing calls ? > > I want to distribute the calls between two gateways. Ideally, with a > coefficient (ie. 60% for the first and 40% for the second). > > Thanks for your support. > > Adrien .L

1 0

[OpenSER-Users] SIP Response code in a Failure Route Block
by Douglas Garstang 12 Nov '07

12 Nov '07

Can someone tell me why the pseudo variable $rr (SIP reply reason) is not present in a failure_route? If a call fails, this pseudo var contains the SIP response code, '404' for a Not Found for example. I would think that it should DEFINITELY be set in a failure route. OTHER pseudo variables are set in a failure route. Why not the SIP response code? This is probably the most important pseudo variable to have available in a failure route! Douglas. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

4 3

[OpenSER-Users] Forking based on XML document in SDP
by Pascal Maugeri 12 Nov '07

12 Nov '07

Hi I need to fork an INVITE request to a list of SIP URIs. The list of URIs is defined in an XML document, in the payload of the incoming request. I've read in a previous email (contributed by John Peters) that one may fork the request using avpops: > modparam("avpops","avp_aliases","myGroup=i:665") > avp_write("sip:u1@host", "$myGroup"); > avp_write(" sip:u2@host", "$myGroup"); > avp_pushto("$ruri", "$myGroup/g"); For the time being the only solution I see is to process the XML document in a external application using EXEC module that will return the list of SIP URIs for forking. Before sending the forked request(s) the XML document should be removed from the payload (I have no idea yet how to do this). Do you think there is smarter way to manage it ? Maybe I should not try to do this using OpenSER but rather forward the request to an external SIP service that will do the job ? Thanks in advance for any advice, Pascal

2 1

← Newer
1
...
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
...
25
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 November 2007