sr-users March 2007

sr-users@lists.kamailio.org

192 participants
380 discussions

[Users] RTPProxy problem with music-on-hold

by Federico Giannici

I have a problem with RTPProxy: often when I put a call on hold the callee hear no music. No problem if I don't pass through RTPPropxy. The strangest thing is that, if I do a lot of tries, I eventually succeed to make the callee to hear the music! I put rtpproxy in debug mode and found that when I finally succeed the usual line: callee's address filled in: 83.211.227.15:63829 (RTCP) is replaced by: callee's address filled in: 83.211.227.15:63828 (RTP) guessing RTCP port for callee to be 63829 I don't know RTP enough to understand if all these is normal or some kind of bug. Somebody have a clue? Thanks. -- ___________________________________________________ __ |- giannici(a)neomedia.it |ederico Giannici http://www.neomedia.it ___________________________________________________

17 years, 3 months

[Users] openser + postgres starting problem

by rkmr.em＠gmail.com

Hi If I compiled openser with postgres module and I get the following errors: [mark@localhost|~|16:34:34] /usr/local/sbin/openserctl moni /usr/local/lib/openser/openserctl/openserctl.pgsql: line 57: unexpected EOF while looking for matching `'' /usr/local/lib/openser/openserctl/openserctl.pgsql: line 70: syntax error: unexpected end of file database engine 'PGSQL' loaded Control engine 'FIFO' loaded ERROR: Error opening OpenSER's FIFO FIFO ERROR: Make sure you have line 'fifo=FIFO' in your config The line 57 3rd line in here: # input: sql query, optional pgsql command-line params pgsql_ro_query() { mdbg "pgsql_ro_query: $PGSQL $2 -h $DBHOST -U $DBROUSER $DBNAME -c '$1'" PGPASSWORD="$DBROPW" $PGSQL $2 \ -h $DBHOST \ -U $DBROUSER \ $DBNAME \ -c "$1" } How to fix this? thanks

17 years, 3 months

Re: Fw: [Users] TM : retransmission timers

by Rao Ramaratnamma

Hi Weiter, Yeah, I have been trying to limit myself to technical observations too, but the governance aspect is somewhat interesting too as a hint for future development, even though I guess even this is much more confusing than the technical ones. I have investigated, both projects have their firms with them that pursue their commercial interests which creates a risk of possibly departing from the public interest, like with redhat. From this angle they look quite similar. But if any worries me just a little bit more than openser. Appearance at commercial shows on the "open" side versus technical event on the "net" side if I take your BSD parallel, marketing "open" webpage accusing "net" version bad, hiding root commerical sponsors on the "open" webpage, this could be signs for a redhat-like doubleedged sword. Hopefully I am oversensing because I mean it is natural that everybody has SOME interest, but indisputably folks on both sides have done good work, but same indisputably more TRANSPARENCY would be helpful for both projects so that users can be less investigative. But I agree the technical comparison you suggest will be very useful if not most useful. This is what I am eventually upto. Anything folks have to tell in this topic is most welcome like the retransmission timers in subject or user loading. rr disconcerted by the fact that the more I know the more I am confused and determined to get over the learning curve quickly. also excuse the abuse I crossposted again but I think cross interrogation is a bit painful but the more effective :-) ----- Original Message ---- From: Weiter Leiter <bp4mls(a)googlemail.com> To: Kim Il <kim_il_s(a)yahoo.com> Cc: users(a)openser.org Sent: Thursday, November 9, 2006 1:42:29 PM Subject: Re: Fw: [Users] TM : retransmission timers Common user barely has time to meet his boss requirements, rather than playing around with different scenarios, platforms, environments. I only read one email where Daniel stated that OpenSER now performs a whole much better while loading users from database. SER guys put no figure out yet, neither bare numbers nor comparisons. I'm just really curious to see how both servers perform, that's all. Even though I must maintain my SER, I kinda like OpenSER's faster releases and developers' responsiveness (that I shamelessly exploit for the common code left there :-), which is pretty much nonexistent with iptel (at least this is the general belief here at OpenSER). But about this I'll probably have to fight on SER's mailing list. I still wish that one day I won't have to compare features; heck, NetSER and FreeSER are still available ;-). WL. PS. Maybe regretfully, I haven't seen any iptel booth at von this year, while OpenSER guys put up a nice show. My congrats. On 11/9/06, Kim Il <kim_il_s(a)yahoo.com> wrote: I can see what you are hinting at, but I guess that the users are the unbiased party that should do the judgment and not the parties who have something to gain. cheers Weiter Leiter <bp4mls(a)googlemail.com> wrote: This features comparisons are not to last for too long, some performance comparisons would also be nice. After all, there are plenty of UA-level stacks out there. At least now that both projects get to have stable releases after forking and some core functionality remained shared. I wonder what "unbiased" organization will take up the challenge. :-) On 11/8/06, Kim Il < kim_il_s(a)yahoo.com > wrote:Mike, this is a really good start and we should collect these things so as to help the community to take the right choice. I would also suggest that what ever ground breaking issues we list we stay at the functional level (I do not think anyone is helped by using a description containing "allowing carrier grade platforms" and similar marketing phrases). cheers {truncated because too large} Sponsored Link Talk more and pay less. Vonage can save you up to $300 a year on your phone bill. Sign up now. _______________________________________________ Users mailing list Users(a)openser.org http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users

17 years, 3 months

[Users] Openser architectural question

by vallimamod abdullah

Hello List, I have currently one openser proxy running on an Intel Xeon 2.8GHz and which is offering different sip customer services. It works fine, the only problem is the complexity of the configuration. For better security and easier maintenance, I have imagined to have one openser instance per service running on a virtual server (linux vserver). I would like to hear from the community opinion about the kind of problems I may encounter with this schema (performance limitations over all). If somebody have already built such architecture, I'll be happy to learn from his experience ! Thanks. -- Regards, -vma .

17 years, 3 months

[Serusers] SER doesn't load but system thinks it is

by POON Ben

Hi all, I am trying to load ser, and it says it does. But when I do a ps -el | grep ser, it doesn't show up... I am running Solaris 10, ser 0.9.3. Can anyone please give me a hand? This is what I did: ************************************************************************ ****************** bash # ./serctl start Starting SER : started pid(532) bash # ps -el | grep ser 0 S 0 421 402 0 40 20 ? 695 ? ? 0:00 htt_serv 0 S 0 384 1 0 40 20 ? 253 ? ? 0:00 dpkeyser 0 S 0 390 1 0 40 20 ? 232 ? ? 0:00 jserver 0 S 0 391 390 0 40 20 ? 328 ? ? 0:00 jserver_ bash # ./serctl restart Stopping SER : ./serctl: line 812: kill: (532) - No such process stopped Starting SER : PID file exists! (/var/run/ser.pid) already running? ************************************************************************ ****************** The system thinks it's already running, but there's no actual process started... Any help is greatly appreciated. Thank you very much, Ben

17 years, 3 months

[Users] OT: Troubleshooting DNS SRV records

by kjcsb

I'm trying to get SRV records working and am having difficulties. I wonder if anyone could point me in the direction of some useful information on this topic to assist in troubleshooting. I've read a lot of stuff about how to set it up and check the records, but since I'm still having problems, there's something else wrong and I've run out of ideas. nslookup set type=srv _sip._tcp.domain.co.nz Server: 64.38.5.242 Address: 64.38.5.242#53 Non-authoritative answer: _sip._tcp.domain.co.nz service = 10 10 5060 domain.co.nz. _sip._tcp.domain.co.nz service = 20 10 5060 beta.domain.co.nz. Authoritative answers can be found from: domain.co.nz nameserver = ns1.widge.net. domain.co.nz nameserver = ns2.widge.net. > _sip._udp.domain.co.nz Server: 64.38.5.242 Address: 64.38.5.242#53 Non-authoritative answer: _sip._udp.domain.co.nz service = 10 10 5060 domain.co.nz. _sip._udp.domain.co.nz service = 20 10 5060 beta.domain.co.nz. Authoritative answers can be found from: domain.co.nz nameserver = ns2.widge.net. domain.co.nz nameserver = ns1.widge.net. One thing I notice from this is that no IP addresses are returned. Is that normal? The problems I am experiencing are that neither my Grandstream BT102 or SPA3000 can resolve the proxy name using SRV (when use SRV is set to on in those devices). In the case of the BT102 it won't register (switching off use SRV allows it to register). In the case of the SPA3000 when I view the syslog output I can see it failing over from the SRV record to the A record which then resolves. Any help appreciated. Cameron

17 years, 3 months

[Users] Re: help in uac config

by vallimamod abdullah

On 3/16/07, Jobson Andrade <jandrade(a)obelisknet.com.br> wrote: > I made this configuration but not work, i need send International calls for > my gateway using one identification (username and password) only this more > not work my configuration. I though you just wanted to change the From header. The 'uac_replace_from()' just changes this header in the sip message. To make client authentification, you need to configure a failure route and use 'uac_auth()' in it. There is an example showing exactly what you are looking for at: http://www.voice-system.ro/docs/uac/ar01s06.html#ex_auth -- Regards, -vma .

17 years, 3 months

[Users] Re: help in uac config

by vallimamod abdullah

Hello Jobson, On 3/16/07, "Jobson Andrade" <jandrade(a)obelisknet.com.br> wrote: > Hello, > > I need one help in my configuration using authentication > > Bellow is my configuration more not work, i need one help for work this > configuration > > modparam("uac","credential","username:itsp.com.br:password") > > ##Send Call For DDI > if (uri=~"^sip:00[1-9][1-9][0-9]*@") { > route(3); > exit; > } > > route[3]{ > #enviando route to hitconferencing > strip(2); > uac_replace_from("credential"); > route(1); > exit; > } > > This is correct? IMHO, it shoud be, according to your example: uac_replace_from(" sip:username@itsp.com.br"); Here are 2 pointers to interesting documentation and example: http://www.openser.org/docs/modules/1.2.x/uac.html#AEN174 http://www.voice-system.ro/docs/uac/ar01s06.html Hope this will help. -- Regards, -vma .

17 years, 3 months

[Users] Openser = 1.1.1 init_tls: null openssl compression methods

by Bodin Bruno

I use Fedora Core 5 and when I launch openser in TLS mode : 0(13701) init_tls: Entered 0(13701) WARNING:init_tls: disabling compression due ZLIB problems 0(13701) ERRRO:init_tls: null openssl compression methods 0(13701) could not initialize tls, exiting... How can I fix this ? Thank :)

17 years, 3 months

R: R: [Serusers] SER -> PSTN Gateway+NAT: BYE handling problem

by Fabio Macchi

Hello, I'm using Nathelper + RTPproxy ( can't use Nathelper-only because my gateway doesn't support passive mode ) : route part of ser.cfg attached. In the invite block I use force_rport before authorize block ( as previous discussed ) and the NAT block after: route[4] { # ----------------------------------------------------------------- # NAT Traversal Section # ----------------------------------------------------------------- if (isflagset(6)) { force_rport(); fix_nated_contact(); force_rtp_proxy(); } } The original BYE comes from Gateway with the wrong request URI ( private UA ip ) Request-Line: BYE sip:xxxxxx@1.255.17.9 SIP/2.0 Method: BYE [Resent Packet: False] Fabio -----Messaggio originale----- Da: Kostas Marneris [mailto:K.Marneris@otenet.gr] Inviato: venerdì 16 marzo 2007 13.19 A: Fabio Macchi Cc: Kostas Marneris Oggetto: Re: R: [Serusers] SER -> PSTN Gateway+NAT: BYE handling problem Hello, Which 'NAT Traversal mechanism' do you use ? Nathelper only or Mediaproxy ? Do you change the Contact address somewhere in INVITE block ? force_rport(); fix_nated_contact(); fix_nated_sdp("3"); Check (with a tcpdump at SER) how the original BYE comes from GW. What is the R-URI at the original BYE request (comes from GW) ? Kostas Fabio Macchi wrote: > First, thanks for answer. > > I've tryed your trik and in effect this solve the problem of the '200 ok' > forwarded to the UA, but my problem still remain alive: when BYE is sent > from Gateway, it reaches correctly SER, but it still forward it to the > private UA address. I was wondering about the nat_uac_test in this case, as > the source of the BYE message is the gateway ( not natted ) and not the UA. > > Have any idea about this ? > > Fabio > > -----Messaggio originale----- > Da: Kostas Marneris [mailto:K.Marneris@otenet.gr] > Inviato: giovedì 15 marzo 2007 20.39 > A: Fabio Macchi > Cc: serusers(a)lists.iptel.org > Oggetto: Re: [Serusers] SER -> PSTN Gateway+NAT: BYE handling problem > > Hello, > I was working on about the same problem today either with 'Mediaproxy > solution' > or with 'SER's Nathelper only solution' . > > The NAT issue is a nightmare, not because of SER but because of > different implementations on NAT boxes. > > Actually my problem was : > if the NATed UA send a BYE to SER, SER forward it to PSTN-GW, > then the '200 Ok' Response from PSTN-GW is forwarded by SER to UA > to the wrong port (Contact or Via header port). > > I used the following block on Loose Route section, > (because BYE is loose_routed if you use Record-Route), > and it seems to work. > > # --------------------------------------- > # Loose Route Section > # --------------------------------------- > if (loose_route()) { > # mark routing logic in request > if (method == "BYE") { > if (nat_uac_test("22")) { > xlog("L_NOTICE", "*** LR -> NATed BYE - Use > force_rport()"); > force_rport(); > }; > }; > route(1); > break; > }; > > > > > I faced up your second problem too. > The solution was to move the NAT handling block before proxy_authorize > block. > > I think that the different behaviour does not come with the 'standard > RFC1918 addresses', > but with the different NAT type. > > I realize that the provisional mesgs '100 Trying' and '407 Proxy > Authentication Required' > are relayed back to the real IP addr of NATed UA (this is correct), > but to the WRONG port (that of Contact/Via header and not the signalling > received port). > It seems that these mesgs use the IP address part of 'Received' field of > Location DB > but not the port. > > It happens to work if NAT box use the SAME port (eg. 5060) on NAT > translation > (10.10.10.1:5060 --> Real_IP:5060) (eg. with a SAGEM1500 Router) > But it does not work if NAT box doesn't use the same port > (10.10.10.1:5060 --> Real_IP:38181) > > > I think that this has to be verified by SER developers or SER experts. > > > > Kostas > > --- > K.Marneris(a)otenet.gr > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Fabio Macchi" <f.macchi(a)keeptelecom.com> > To: <serusers(a)lists.iptel.org> > Sent: 15 March 2007 19:34 > Subject: [Serusers] SER -> PSTN Gateway+NAT: BYE handling problem > > >> Hi all, >> >> >> >> I'm running the following schema: >> >> >> >> UA ( possibly natted ) -> SER -> PSTN Gateway >> >> >> >> I have a problem with UA belonging to a particular network with private >> address not RFC1918 compliant ( class 1.x.x.x ), SER and PSTN Gateway have >> pubblic address. >> >> >> >> The problem is that, after a succesfull call, if the PSTN gateway send a > BYE >> to SER, then SER forward BYE to the private address of UA instead of > pubblic >> one. >> >> >> >> I don't understand which is the section that handle BYE messages and how > can >> I solve this problem: anyone may help ? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Second, another question: with this particular network I had problem with >> INVITE too, because SER was sending "proxy authorization request" to the >> wrong TCP port. To solve this, I've moved the nat handling ( with >> force_rport ) before the proxy_authorize block and it's working, but why >> this is not necessary on standard RFC1918 compliant natted address ? >> >> >> >> Many thanks for any explanation >> >> >> >> Fabio >> >> > > > > -- Kostas Marneris e-mail: K.Marneris(a)otenet.gr Tel : +30-210-6151886

17 years, 3 months

← Newer
1
...
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
...
38
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 March 2007