sr-users November 2007

sr-users@lists.kamailio.org

138 participants
248 discussions

[OpenSER-Users] Mediaproxy --help required

by srinivas Antarvedi

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

16 years, 10 months

Re: [Serusers] R: R: Loadbalancing for interco

by Jiri Kuthan

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/

16 years, 10 months

[OpenSER-Users] testing null AVPs

by Ovidiu Sas

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

16 years, 10 months

Re: [Serusers] R: Loadbalancing for interco

by Jiri Kuthan

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/

16 years, 10 months

Re: [Serusers] Loadbalancing for interco

by Jiri Kuthan

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/

16 years, 10 months

[OpenSER-Users] Digest Authentication and nonce count

by Klaus Darilion

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

16 years, 10 months

[Serusers] Loadbalancing for interco

by Stefano Capitanio

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

16 years, 10 months

[OpenSER-Users] SIP Response code in a Failure Route Block

by Douglas Garstang

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

16 years, 10 months

[OpenSER-Users] Forking based on XML document in SDP

by Pascal Maugeri

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

16 years, 10 months

[OpenSER-Users] Loose route problem with ;nat=yes

by Daniel

Hi all, there is a little problem in loose_route () function. Loose_route() function is not able to recognize the address of the proxy server (in the ROUTE header field) if ROUTE header field has the ";nat=yes" tag. So, addresses like " Route: 192.168.2.1;nat=yes;lr=on;ftag=123455 " are read by loose_route as foreign address. Meanwhile "Route: 192.168.2.1;lr=on;ftag=123455" are recognized correctly. where 192.168.2.1 = proxy server address Regerds, Daniel -- Daniel Grotti ________________________ e-mail : d.grotti(a)gmail.com

16 years, 10 months

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