sr-users November 2007

sr-users@lists.kamailio.org

138 participants
249 discussions

Re: [Serusers] [Serdev] [Tracker] Created: (SER-332) tcp branching error
by Tomasz Zieleniewski 23 Nov '07

23 Nov '07

Hi, Some more debug information: User contacts: ser@sen:~/ser/ser-2.0/ssp$ ./serctl/ser_ctl usrloc show touk(a)voip.rd.touk.pl sip:touk@192.168.0.164:1338;rinstance=191d670c84591ea3;transport=TCP 3330 -1.0 sip:touk@192.168.0.164:1348;rinstance=e51fd20db73fc732;transport=TCP 3405 -1.0 Contents of the location table: mysql> select * from location where uid like 'touk@%'; +----------------------+--------------------------+----------------------------------------------------------------------+----------+---------------------+----+----------------------------------------------+------+-------+----------------------------------+----------+ | uid | aor | contact | received | expires | q | callid | cseq | flags | user_agent | instance | +----------------------+--------------------------+----------------------------------------------------------------------+----------+---------------------+----+----------------------------------------------+------+-------+----------------------------------+----------+ | touk(a)voip.rd.touk.pl | sip:touk@voip.rd.touk.pl | sip:touk@192.168.0.164:1338;rinstance=191d670c84591ea3;transport=TCP | NULL | 2007-11-23 11:17:03 | -1 | MTQ1ZWZmZWE2MWIxZjViYmVkNzZlNmU0YTEwNjRmMTA. | 4 | 0 | X-Lite release 1011s stamp 41150 | NULL | | touk(a)voip.rd.touk.pl | sip:touk@voip.rd.touk.pl | sip:touk@192.168.0.164:1348;rinstance=e51fd20db73fc732;transport=TCP | NULL | 2007-11-23 11:18:18 | -1 | NDk0ZDA3ZmU5NmFlZmYyMjA5Mjc2ZTZiYTFmMTMxODY. | 4 | 0 | X-Lite release 1011s stamp 41150 | NULL | +----------------------+--------------------------+----------------------------------------------------------------------+----------+---------------------+----+----------------------------------------------+------+-------+----------------------------------+----------+ 2 rows in set (0.00 sec) Here is what does the internal proxy (192.168.0.165:7160) which is registrar and perform location service, the destination set contains both contacts and the first contact used is the one which is unavailable. this proxy sends first invite with this contact to boundary sip proxy Nov 23 11:20:27 sen ser[28434]: route[FORWARD]: xlset_attr(bsp_route, <$global_addr_bsp;lr=on>) Nov 23 11:20:27 sen ser[28434]: route[FORWARD]: attr_destination($bsp_route) Nov 23 11:20:27 sen ser[28434]: route[FORWARD]: ($fr_inv_timer) Nov 23 11:20:27 sen ser[28434]: route[FORWARD]: t_on_reply(ONREPLY_ROUTE) Nov 23 11:20:27 sen ser[28434]: route[FORWARD]: t_on_failure(FAILURE_ROUTE) Nov 23 11:20:27 sen ser[28434]: route[FORWARD]: t_on_branch(BRANCH_ROUTE) Nov 23 11:20:27 sen ser[28434]: route[FORWARD]: destination set: Contact: sip:touk@192.168.0.164:1338;rinstance=191d670c84591ea3;transport=TCP, sip:touk@192.168.0.164:1348;rinstance=e51fd20db73fc732;transpo Nov 23 11:20:27 sen ser[28434]: route[FORWARD]: next route: <null> Nov 23 11:20:27 sen ser[28434]: route[FORWARD]: message's next hop: sip:voip.rd.touk.pl:7060;lr=on Nov 23 11:20:27 sen ser[28434]: route[FORWARD]: (!t_relay()) Nov 23 11:20:27 sen ser[28434]: branch_route[BRANCH_ROUTE]: <INVITE> ruri:<sip:touk@192.168.0.164:1338;rinstance=191d670c84591ea3;transport=TCP> t:<sip:touk@voip.rd.touk.pl> f:<sip:hellboy@voip.rd.touk.pl> c Nov 23 11:20:27 sen ser[28434]: branch_route[BRANCH_ROUTE]: append_hf(P-Warn: forked branch) Nov 23 11:20:27 sen ser[28434]: branch_route[BRANCH_ROUTE]: <INVITE> ruri:<sip:touk@192.168.0.164:1348;rinstance=e51fd20db73fc732;transport=TCP> t:<sip:touk@voip.rd.touk.pl> f:<sip:hellboy@voip.rd.touk.pl> c Nov 23 11:20:27 sen ser[28434]: branch_route[BRANCH_ROUTE]: append_hf(P-Warn: forked branch) Nov 23 11:20:27 sen ser[28434]: ERROR: tcp_blocking_connect: poll error: flags 18 Nov 23 11:20:27 sen ser[28434]: ERROR: tcp_blocking_connect: SO_ERROR (111) Connection refused Nov 23 11:20:27 sen ser[28434]: ERROR: tcpconn_connect: tcp_blocking_connect failed Nov 23 11:20:27 sen ser[28434]: ERROR: tcp_send: connect failed Nov 23 11:20:27 sen ser[28434]: msg_send: ERROR: tcp_send failed Nov 23 11:20:27 sen ser[28434]: ERROR: t_send_branch: sending request on branch 1 failed Nov 23 11:20:27 sen ser[28434]: route[FORWARD]: drop here is what happens in boundary sip proxy: is receives the invite tries to do the t_rqlay but there is the tcp error. t_relay() fails and it sends the sl_reply_error to internal sip proxy: Nov 23 11:31:38 sen ser[31861]: route[FORWARD]: destination set: <null> Nov 23 11:31:38 sen ser[31861]: route[FORWARD]: next route: <null> Nov 23 11:31:38 sen ser[31861]: route[FORWARD]: message's next hop: sip:touk@192.168.0.164:1338;rinstance=191d670c84591ea3;transport=TCP Nov 23 11:31:38 sen ser[31861]: route[FORWARD]: (!t_relay()) Nov 23 11:31:38 sen ser[31861]: ERROR: tcp_blocking_connect: poll error: flags 18 Nov 23 11:31:38 sen ser[31861]: ERROR: tcp_blocking_connect: SO_ERROR (111) Connection refused Nov 23 11:31:38 sen ser[31861]: ERROR: tcpconn_connect: tcp_blocking_connect failed Nov 23 11:31:38 sen ser[31861]: ERROR: tcp_send: connect failed Nov 23 11:31:38 sen ser[31861]: msg_send: ERROR: tcp_send failed Nov 23 11:31:38 sen ser[31861]: ERROR: t_send_branch: sending request on branch 0 failed Nov 23 11:31:38 sen ser[31861]: route[FORWARD]: (!t_relay()) -> TRUE Nov 23 11:31:38 sen ser[31861]: route[FORWARD]: sl_reply_error() Nov 23 11:31:38 sen ser[31861]: ERROR: sl_reply_error used: I'm terribly sorry, server error occurred (1/SL) in the attachment there are ngrep and wireshark log from the same situation if you need more info please let me know waiting for your feedback Cheers tomasz On Nov 22, 2007 8:40 PM, Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul <andrei(a)iptel.org> wrote: > On Nov 16, 2007 at 14:43, Tomasz Zieleniewski (JIRA) <tracker(a)iptel.org> wrote: > > tcp branching error > > ------------------- > > > > Key: SER-332 > > URL: http://tracker.iptel.org/browse/SER-332 > > Project: SER > > Issue Type: Bug > > Components: core > > Affects Versions: 2.0 > > Environment: Linux sen 2.6.18-5-amd64 #1 SMP Tue Oct 2 20:37:02 UTC 2007 x86_64 GNU/Linux > > Reporter: Tomasz Zieleniewski > > Priority: Critical > > > > > > Hi, > > > > I have the following situation. > > I have two ser rel_2_0_0 instances one acting as a boundary proxy the > > other on as internal proxy (registrar, location). > > > > I have the following situation I have a user which has registered two > > contacs one woth tcp transport the other one with udp. > > > > All messages coming to and outgoing from my network travels through > > boundary sip proxy. > > > > When internal ser perform lookup_location it get to contacts and the > > destination set contains two records: > > Nov 15 11:03:13 sen ser[3673]: route[FORWARD]: destination set: > > Contact: sip:xlite@192.168.0.164:1221;rinstance=d35f9cda6bd79b0a;transport=TCP, > > sip:xlite@192.168.0.164:7060 > > > > Then internal ser forward message to boundary SIP proxy by changing > > the destination of the message and with the usage of t_relay(). > > I see from log that there are two branches involved: > > Nov 15 11:03:13 sen ser[3673]: branch_route[BRANCH_ROUTE]: <INVITE> > > ruri:<sip:xlite@192.168.0.164:1221;rinstance=d35f9cda6bd79b0a;transport=TCP> > > t:<sip:00@voip.rd.touk.pl> f:<sip:lkl@voip.rd.touk.pl> > > Nov 15 11:03:13 sen ser[3673]: branch_route[BRANCH_ROUTE]: > > append_hf(P-Warn: forked branch) > > Nov 15 11:03:13 sen ser[3673]: branch_route[BRANCH_ROUTE]: <INVITE> > > ruri:<sip:xlite@192.168.0.164:7060;rinstance=cfca8523e3747cb0> > > t:<sip:00@voip.rd.touk.pl> f:<sip:lkl@voip.rd.touk.pl> > > Nov 15 11:03:13 sen ser[3673]: branch_route[BRANCH_ROUTE]: > > append_hf(P-Warn: forked branch) > > > > both INVITES reaches boudary SIP proxy. > > > > Because first contact was unreachable there was an tcp error: > > ser[3516]: ERROR: tcp_blocking_connect: poll error: flags 18 > > Nov 15 11:03:13 sen ser[3516]: ERROR: tcp_blocking_connect: SO_ERROR > > (111) Connection refused > > Nov 15 11:03:13 sen ser[3516]: ERROR: tcpconn_connect: > > tcp_blocking_connect failed > > Nov 15 11:03:13 sen ser[3516]: ERROR: tcp_send: connect failed > > Nov 15 11:03:13 sen ser[3516]: msg_send: ERROR: tcp_send failed > > Nov 15 11:03:13 sen ser[3516]: ERROR: t_send_branch: sending request > > on branch 0 failed > > > > after which ser invokes sl_reply_error() which results in 477 next hop > > error reponse message sent to internal ser instance. > > The problem arises when boudary sip proxy processes second INVITE > > which correspond to second destination. > > when boundary SIP proxy receives it doesn't send it to user agent but > > instead reponses to internal ser with > > 500 I'm terribly sorry, server error occurred (1/SL) > > the only thing I see in the boundary SIP proxy log is: > > ERROR: sl_reply_error used: I'm terribly sorry, server error occurred (1/SL) > > > > Did I miss something here or this is an error? > > Waiting for Your feedback > > > > Could you make some traffic dump between the 2 proxies and send it to me > (andrei(a)iptel.org)? > It's sounds quite strange (it should work without any problems) and a > look at the packets might help. > > > Thanks, > Andrei > _______________________________________________ > Serdev mailing list > Serdev(a)lists.iptel.org > http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serdev >

1 0

Re: [Serusers] Can SER support 3-way Conference
by roayu 23 Nov '07

23 Nov '07

Hi Ram! I've installed SER (sip stack) and SEMS. I managed to start both SER but I failed to start SEMS. I got the following error message: "/usr/local/sbin/sems : Permission denied" Then I found that the permission for /usr/local/sbin/sems is not 755 and the file size of it is 0 (zero). Why am I having this error message? Can anyone there tell me why? Thanks. Roa Yu :) -----Original Message----- From: ram [mailto:talk2ram@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 9:06 PM To: roayu Subject: Re: [Serusers] Can SER support 3-way Conference On Nov 20, 2007 8:39 AM, roayu <roayu(a)ctisys.net> wrote: > > > > Hi there, > > > > Can SER alone support 3-way Conference w/o integrate with other > applications? > > > Hi SER is proxy not a Media gateway Look at SEM or ASTERISK for that ram

2 1

[OpenSER-Users] CPL serial forking behaviour
by Daniel 23 Nov '07

23 Nov '07

Hi all, I'd like to understand CPL the behaviour or serial forking made by CPL. This is my CPL script (for USER A): <incoming> <lookup source="registration"> <success> <proxy ordering="sequential" /> </success> </lookup> </incoming> </cpl> The first question is : In this case, if I have 2 contacts for USER A, what is its behaviour ? I have made a couple of tests about it. USER A has 2 contacts : USERA@IP_1 and USERA@IP_2 and the CPL script as above. USER B has 1 contact : USERB@IP_3 The location table is: ID username contact q 318 USERB USERB@IP_3 1 319 USERA USERA@IP_1 1 320 USERA USERA@IP_2 1 In this case the CPL script calls both of Contacts of USER A, at the same time. Then, I've changed the two contact's q parameters: ID username contact q 318 USERB USERB@IP_3 1 319 USERA USERA@IP_1 1 320 USERA USERA@IP_2 0.1 In this case CPL script calls first USERA@IP_2 (low q paramenter) and then USERA@IP_1 (high q-value) ID username contact q 318 USERB USERB@IP_3 1 319 USERA USERA@IP_1 0.1 320 USERA USERA@IP_2 1 In this case CPL script calls first USERA@IP_1 (low q paramenter) and then USERA@IP_2 (high q-value) ID username contact q 318 USERB USERB@IP_3 1 319 USERA USERA@IP_1 0.1 320 USERA USERA@IP_2 0.5 In this case CPL script calls first USERA@IP_1 (low q paramenter) and then USERA@IP_2 (high q-value) ID username contact q 318 USERB USERB@IP_3 1 319 USERA USERA@IP_1 0.1 320 USERA USERA@IP_2 0.1 In this case the CPL script calls both of Contacts of USER A, at the same time. It seem work in the reverse mode: it call first the lowest q value and then the highest. So, does PROXY element (with ordering="sequential") care about q-parameter ? Can somebody help me? Regards, Daniel -- Daniel Grotti ________________________ e-mail : d.grotti(a)gmail.com

1 1

[OpenSER-Users] Help with unixODBC + sqlite driver
by kionez 22 Nov '07

22 Nov '07

Hi, i found a message on openser-user mailing list: http://openser.org/pipermail/users/2007-April/010628.html I'm trying to get working my openser with unixodbc+sqlite3, but i don't know why it fails with same errors.. i think is unixodbc openser's module, because with "isql -v mysqlitedb" i can access to my sqlite db... someone can help me? :) thanx Fulvio

2 4

[OpenSER-Users] RINSTANCE
by Thiago Maluf 22 Nov '07

22 Nov '07

Somebody know what is RINSTANCE in SIP Contact? ---------------------------------------------------------------- THIAGO MALUF RESENDE e-mail: malufrj(a)gmail.com

2 1

[OpenSER-Users] Edit SIP Header, Contact field
by Thiago Maluf 22 Nov '07

22 Nov '07

I Want edit the Contact field. How I do it? Thanks in advanced, Thiago -- ---------------------------------------------------------------- THIAGO MALUF RESENDE Consultor Voip e Programador WEB (Voip Developer and Web Developer) Tel: +55 21 86042100 e-mail: malufrj(a)gmail.com

3 3

[OpenSER-Users] [CPL] ERROR:core:set_dst_uri: not enough pkg memory
by Iñaki Baz Castillo 22 Nov '07

22 Nov '07

I have a simple CPL for a user "200" that just should lookup for the contact in the "location" table: <cpl> <incoming> <lookup source="registration"> <success> <proxy /> </success> </lookup> </incoming> </cpl> In the script I do: cpl_run_script("incoming","FORCE_STATEFUL"); and I get an error: ERROR:core:set_dst_uri: not enough pkg memory ERROR:cpl_c:cpl_proxy_to_loc_set: do_action failed ERROR:cpl_c:cpl_run_script: runtime error and the script continues but with the URI changed. It's strange: it's obvious that CPL does a DB query to "location" table asking for 200@domain (I've monitorized it in mysql logs) but after that it shows the errors above and the OpenSer script continues (with the URI set to the contact URI). Why can it occur? maybe it's a bug? Thanks. -- Iñaki Baz Castillo

2 3

Re: [OpenSER-Users] openser SBC and upper registration.
by Ovidiu Sas 21 Nov '07

21 Nov '07

This issue was already discussed. Check the following link: http://lists.openser.org/pipermail/users/2007-May/010857.html Regards, Ovidiu Sas On Nov 16, 2007 6:53 PM, rohail khan <rohail_12(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Well save() does not work on reply route, its for request route , what I did > is from reply route i used t_check_status("200") and route it to another > route block let say route[6] and I used save_noreply() to save the contact > and it saving now but the problem is that like SBC I was modifying > registration request from UA and changing the CONTACT before relaying to my > other server but when I am saving the contact info its saving with openser > contact info no information for UA so call can still can not route to UA. > any idea > > Thanks > > > Ovidiu Sas <osas(a)voipembedded.com> wrote: > You can call save() in the reply_route. You can check there is the > response is a 200ok or not. > In this particular case you will lose some informations that are used > to handle NATed UA. > Test and see if it will fit your needs. > > > Regards, > Ovidiu sas > > On Nov 15, 2007 5:53 AM, rohail khan wrote: > > Hi > > I am trying to configure openser for uppser registration, so far I am > > relaying the registration after modifying contact in the registration of > > openser IP address but I want to save the contact only if the registration > > is sucessfull from upper registration server. If I use "save_noreply" its > > save the location no matter if the UA is registered with upper > registration > > server > > > > any idea > > thanks in advance > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage. > > _______________________________________________ > > Users mailing list > > Users(a)lists.openser.org > > http://lists.openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile. Try it > now.

2 2

Re: [Serusers] Implicit Registration Set
by Jiri Kuthan 21 Nov '07

21 Nov '07

p.s. which may be good enough. we know from interop events that having multiple contacts with only one actual registration has actually caused some interop issues. anyhow -- it depends on what your use case is, some of these things -- should they pay off -- are scriptable. At 23:01 21/11/2007, Jiri Kuthan wrote: >It will return one contact. -jiri > >At 07:44 21/11/2007, Magnus Sörman wrote: >>OK, but using alias, will that give me back both contacts in the 200 OK for a Register (unfortunately I don't have the possibility to try this right now)? >> >> /Magnus >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Jiri Kuthan [mailto:jiri@iptel.org] >>Sent: den 15 november 2007 15:00 >>To: Magnus Sörman; serusers(a)lists.iptel.org >>Subject: Re: [Serusers] Implicit Registration Set >> >>well it depends -- doing what you are suggesting literally is quite tricky and I'm not sure this IMS feature is worth the effort. IF you would like to register and be then available under all of your aliases (both "that address" >>and "his tel-uri"), you can easily use aliases. >> >>-jiri >> >>At 14:52 15/11/2007, Magnus Sörman wrote: >>>Content-class: urn:content-classes:message >>>Content-Type: multipart/alternative; >>> boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C8278E.D8F42EB4" >>> >>>Hi, >>> >>>How do you/could you configure SER to use implicit registration set? >>>If e.g. a user with a sip URI registers, then both that address and his tel-uri should be registered. >>> >>>Thanks, >>> /Magnus Sorman >>>_______________________________________________ >>>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/ -- Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/

1 0

Re: [Serusers] Implicit Registration Set
by Jiri Kuthan 21 Nov '07

21 Nov '07

It will return one contact. -jiri At 07:44 21/11/2007, Magnus Sörman wrote: >OK, but using alias, will that give me back both contacts in the 200 OK for a Register (unfortunately I don't have the possibility to try this right now)? > > /Magnus > >-----Original Message----- >From: Jiri Kuthan [mailto:jiri@iptel.org] >Sent: den 15 november 2007 15:00 >To: Magnus Sörman; serusers(a)lists.iptel.org >Subject: Re: [Serusers] Implicit Registration Set > >well it depends -- doing what you are suggesting literally is quite tricky and I'm not sure this IMS feature is worth the effort. IF you would like to register and be then available under all of your aliases (both "that address" >and "his tel-uri"), you can easily use aliases. > >-jiri > >At 14:52 15/11/2007, Magnus Sörman wrote: >>Content-class: urn:content-classes:message >>Content-Type: multipart/alternative; >> boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C8278E.D8F42EB4" >> >>Hi, >> >>How do you/could you configure SER to use implicit registration set? >>If e.g. a user with a sip URI registers, then both that address and his tel-uri should be registered. >> >>Thanks, >> /Magnus Sorman >>_______________________________________________ >>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/

1 0

← Newer
1
...
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
...
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