sr-users April 2007

sr-users@lists.kamailio.org

177 participants
273 discussions

[Serusers] REGISTERED(TRANSACTION) BUT NO DIALOG
by Adeyeye Michael 25 Apr '07

25 Apr '07

Hi, My clients get registered but no call is successfully transfered when I used UCTIMSCLIENT or Linphone. Besides I can't get any output or trace to know what is wrong with SER. micadeyeye@micadeyeye:/opt/OpenIMSCore$ sudo ngrep port 5060 -d eth0 Password: interface: eth0 (10.128.0.0/255.255.0.0) filter: (ip or ip6) and ( port 5060 ) PLS HELP. MIKE

1 0

[Serusers] No trace!!!
by Adeyeye Michael 25 Apr '07

25 Apr '07

Can anyone help out? I can see any output or trace. micadeyeye@micadeyeye:/opt/OpenIMSCore$ sudo ngrep port 5060 -d eth0 Password: interface: eth0 (10.128.0.0/255.255.0.0) filter: (ip or ip6) and ( port 5060 ) MIke.

1 0

[Users] WeSIP setup problem
by ventilo35＠free.fr 25 Apr '07

25 Apr '07

Hello I'm having problems running OpenSER with WeSIP AS. I have installed OpenSER 1.2 stable release, and also tried the latest version using SVN, and I use WeSIP 0.1.4. The same problem always arises: I get either "no route" if a servlet was invoked, or "481" if no servlet was run. In both cases, it seems WeSIP is not able to send the INVITE back to OpenSER. Here are the traces: <First trace: a servlet named neos is run; it just proxies the message> SeasMessageEvent [SeasRouter] - New message received, from 192.168.1.17:5060 to 192.168.1.17:5060 over UDP SeasTransactionEvent [SeasRouter] - hash_index = 45959,label=642523441 flags=0 ExpressMessageChannel [ExpressMChannel[0]] - peerAddress = 192.168.1.17/5060 ExpressMessageChannel [ExpressMChannel[0]] - About to process INVITE sip:5002@192.168.1.11 SIP/2.0 SipConnector [ExpressMChannel[0]] - createProcessor: Reusing existing processor SipProcessor [ExpressMChannel[0]] - An incoming message is being assigned ExpressMessageChannel [ExpressMChannel[0]] - Done processing INVITE sip:5002@192.168.1.11 SIP/2.0 SipProcessor [SipProcessor[4]] - <<<<<<<<< Request Received <<<<<<<<< INVITE sip:5002@192.168.1.11 SIP/2.0 Call-ID: 20011e80-296f38df-c0a814d5(a)192.168.1.11 From: "5001" <sip:5001@192.168.1.11>;tag=10005f00-296f38e8 To: <sip:5002@192.168.1.11> CSeq: 100 INVITE Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.1.17:5060;branch=z9hG4bKc0a814d51000bf80296f38e9 Contact: "5001" <sip:5001@192.168.1.17:5060> Max-Forwards: 69 User-Agent: LR SIP Phone Allow: INFO,UPDATE,NOTIFY,REFER Content-Type: application/sdp Content-Length: 406 SeasHashTable [SipProcessor[4]] - Inserting hashIdx:45959 label:642523441 into hashTable SipProcessor [SipProcessor[4]] - Transaction [z9hG4bKc0a814d51000bf80296f38e9] is new Transaction?? --> true EngineSipMapper [SipProcessor[4]] - Request from 192.168.1.11 mapped to: ConvergedEngine[Standalone].StandardHttpHost[localhost] ConvergedEngineValve [SipProcessor[4]] - Invoking Host:localhost ConvergedHostValve [SipProcessor[4]] - SipSession not found for requestINVITE, trying match against Rules ConvergedHost [SipProcessor[4]] - Mapped request to:/neos ConvergedContextValve [SipProcessor[4]] - new session created :20011e80-296f38df-c0a814d5@192.168.1.11 doInvite within neos servlet: requestURI is sip:5002@192.168.1.11 StandardProxy [SipProcessor[4]] - sip:5002@192.168.1.11 Added to proxying targets. StandardProxy [SipProcessor[4]] - doProxy: proxying to sip:5002@192.168.1.11 StandardProxy [SipProcessor[4]] - ========== Request Sent ============== INVITE sip:5002@192.168.1.11 SIP/2.0 Call-ID: 20011e80-296f38df-c0a814d5(a)192.168.1.11 From: "5001" <sip:5001@192.168.1.11>;tag=10005f00-296f38e8 To: <sip:5002@192.168.1.11> CSeq: 100 INVITE Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.1.11:5060,SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.1.17:5060;branch=z9hG4bKc0a814d51000bf80296f38e9 Contact: "5001" <sip:5001@192.168.1.17:5060> Max-Forwards: 68 User-Agent: LR SIP Phone Allow: INFO,UPDATE,NOTIFY,REFER Content-Type: application/sdp Content-Length: 406 StandardProxy [SipProcessor[4]] - javax.sip.TransactionUnavailableException: no route! SipConnector [SipProcessor[4]] - recycle: Recycling processor SipProcessor[4] <Second trace: the servlet is deactivated> SeasMessageEvent [SeasRouter] - New message received, from 192.168.1.17:5060 to 192.168.1.17:5060 over UDP SeasTransactionEvent [SeasRouter] - hash_index = 32078,label=1509443196 flags=0 ExpressMessageChannel [ExpressMChannel[2]] - peerAddress = 192.168.1.17/5060 ExpressMessageChannel [ExpressMChannel[2]] - About to process INVITE sip:5002@192.168.1.11 SIP/2.0 SipConnector [ExpressMChannel[2]] - createProcessor: Reusing existing processor SipProcessor [ExpressMChannel[2]] - An incoming message is being assigned ExpressMessageChannel [ExpressMChannel[2]] - Done processing INVITE sip:5002@192.168.1.11 SIP/2.0 SipProcessor [SipProcessor[4]] - <<<<<<<<< Request Received <<<<<<<<< INVITE sip:5002@192.168.1.11 SIP/2.0 Call-ID: 20011b80-29725a1f-c0a814d5(a)192.168.1.11 From: "5001" <sip:5001@192.168.1.11>;tag=10005c00-29725a28 To: <sip:5002@192.168.1.11> CSeq: 100 INVITE Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.1.17:5060;branch=z9hG4bKc0a814d51000bf8029725a29 Contact: "5001" <sip:5001@192.168.1.17:5060> Max-Forwards: 69 User-Agent: LR SIP Phone Allow: INFO,UPDATE,NOTIFY,REFER Content-Type: application/sdp Content-Length: 408 SeasHashTable [SipProcessor[4]] - Inserting hashIdx:32078 label:1509443196 into hashTable SipProcessor [SipProcessor[4]] - Transaction [z9hG4bKc0a814d51000bf8029725a29] is new Transaction?? --> true EngineSipMapper [SipProcessor[4]] - Request from 192.168.1.11 mapped to: ConvergedEngine[Standalone].StandardHttpHost[localhost] ConvergedEngineValve [SipProcessor[4]] - Invoking Host:localhost ConvergedHostValve [SipProcessor[4]] - SipSession not found for requestINVITE, trying match against Rules ConvergedHost [SipProcessor[4]] - Mapped request to:/neos ConvergedHostValve [SipProcessor[4]] - No servlet-mapping matched this Request. SipResponse [SipProcessor[4]] - >>>>>>>>> Sending Response >>>>>>>>> SIP/2.0 481 Call Leg/Transaction Does Not Exist Call-ID: 20011b80-29725a1f-c0a814d5(a)192.168.1.11 From: "5001" <sip:5001@192.168.1.11>;tag=10005c00-29725a28 To: <sip:5002@192.168.1.11> CSeq: 100 INVITE Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.1.17:5060;branch=z9hG4bKc0a814d51000bf8029725a29 Max-Forwards: 69 Content-Length: 0 I have thoroughly reviewed my configuration against the rules explained in the WeSIP website, everything seems in order (address OpenSER receives on is 192.168.1.11:5060, address for SEAS and WeSIP is 127.0.0.1:5080). Could you please tell me if this is something you already encountered and solved ? Thanks in advance Francois

2 1

[Users] XCAP Lite 0.9.1 released
by Adrian Georgescu 25 Apr '07

25 Apr '07

Change log xcap-lite (0.9.1) unstable; urgency=low * Added commit/rollback capability (use MDB2 database driver instead of DB) * Added inserted_time in watcher sync (diff provided by Klaus Darilion) The software can be downloaded from: http://download.dns-hosting.info/XCAP/xcap-lite-0.9.1.tar.gz Regards, Adrian

1 0

[Serusers] How to handle Cisco Phone registrations withouth DNS SRV records
by Mahatma Sarasvati 25 Apr '07

25 Apr '07

Hello All, I want to be able to handle registrations from Cisco Phones on the public internet to my SER server. I don't run my own public DNS servers. I use register.com for DNS and they don't support DNS SRV records as far as I know. So, my Cisco phone config has to have "voice.mydomain.com" in order for the REGISTER message to reach the SER server. However, I want my user accounts to be "jsmith(a)mydomain.com." The Cisco phone config is limiting because it appends the name of the proxy to the registration. Instead of 'username(a)mydomain.com' its trying to register with 'username(a)voice.mydomain.com' How can this be handled in the SER config? I use DNS SRV records on the LAN and it works great. What is the best method to handle this scenario? Thanks, Mahatma __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

2 1

RE: [Users] LCR in cache mode
by Papadopoulos Georgios 25 Apr '07

25 Apr '07

In my humble opinion this was a pretty useful relic from the past and it pretty much means I cannot upgrade to 1.2 :-( Are you suggesting that ip should be a primary key in the gw table? It doesn't make sense to me. Do you have any other suggestions to achieve what I am trying to do? thank you George > -----Original Message----- > From: Juha Heinanen [mailto:jh@tutpro.com] > Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 12:54 PM > To: Papadopoulos Georgios > Cc: users(a)openser.org > Subject: RE: [Users] LCR in cache mode > > Papadopoulos Georgios writes: > > > Well, in my case the IP belongs to an asterisk server > which then sends > the call to 5 PSTN gateways. I use this > trick with the 5 different > prefixes to make asterisk > choose between the 5 PSTN gateways. It works > fine in db > mode but not in cache mode. Shouldn't lcr behave the same in > > both modes? > > db_mode does not exist anymore in 1.2. it was relic from the past. > > > I tried working around this by puting the 5 entries into 5 > different gw > groups (this sounds like a bigger hack to me > than what I am currently > doing). Still, in cache mode the > same entry is always picked. > > that is because according to the current design of lcr module > a gateway prefix is gateway specific gateways being > identified by their ip addresses. if request matches more > than one gateway, only one of them is left on the list and > the rest are pruned. > > -- juha > Disclaimer The information in this e-mail and any attachments is confidential. It is intended solely for the attention and use of the named addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, or person responsible for delivering this information to the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Unless you are the intended recipient or his/her representative you are not authorized to, and must not, read, copy, distribute, use or retain this message or any part of it. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses.

2 1

[Users] presence .... hard state?
by Cesc 25 Apr '07

25 Apr '07

Hi, RFC 3903 (PUBlishing to an event), talks about hard state and soft state. Soft state is properly handled by presence module ... that is, the one generated by PUB messages. But, is there any way to set hard state? the way I read it, it shall be possible to do: Bob subscribes to Alice presence info Alice has not published anything ... but we know we shall handle her state. We send to Bob a NOTIFY with the hard state (default) Or does the module already do that? how can I set the default hard state? Regards, Cesc

2 2

[Serusers] Using SER
by Adeyeye Michael 25 Apr '07

25 Apr '07

2 1

[Serusers] Bad Config file
by Adeyeye Michael 25 Apr '07

25 Apr '07

Hi, I am trying to use SER. At present, I added a line to ser.cfg in order to perform NAT transversal but I always get error on running my SER. ERROR: bad config file (1 errors) root@micadeyeye:/usr/src/sip_router# Pls find attached my ser.cfg file

2 1

RE: [Users] LCR in cache mode
by Papadopoulos Georgios 25 Apr '07

25 Apr '07

Hello Juha, Well, in my case the IP belongs to an asterisk server which then sends the call to 5 PSTN gateways. I use this trick with the 5 different prefixes to make asterisk choose between the 5 PSTN gateways. It works fine in db mode but not in cache mode. Shouldn't lcr behave the same in both modes? I tried working around this by puting the 5 entries into 5 different gw groups (this sounds like a bigger hack to me than what I am currently doing). Still, in cache mode the same entry is always picked. Regards, George > -----Original Message----- > From: Juha Heinanen [mailto:jh@tutpro.com] > Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 11:43 AM > To: Papadopoulos Georgios > Cc: users(a)openser.org > Subject: [Users] LCR in cache mode > > Papadopoulos Georgios writes: > > > My gw table contains a gateway group with 5 entries which > have the same > IP but different prefixes. If I use lcr > module in cache mode > (db_mode=1), the same entry is always > picked. If I use lcr in db mode, > then it works as expected > and it picks randomly one of the five entries. > > Is this a known issue? My Openser version is 1.1.x > > the idea with gateway prefix is that prefix of a gateway is > added in front of the called number when the gateway is used. > thus it does not make sense to have the same gateway in the > same gw group many times with different prefixes. > > -- juha > Disclaimer The information in this e-mail and any attachments is confidential. It is intended solely for the attention and use of the named addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, or person responsible for delivering this information to the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Unless you are the intended recipient or his/her representative you are not authorized to, and must not, read, copy, distribute, use or retain this message or any part of it. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses.

2 1

← Newer
1
...
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
...
28
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 April 2007