Hi,
Can someone tell me what does is mean this error:
tuandat@ubuntu:~/serctl$ ./ser_ctl domain add iptel.org
ser_ctl: No module named MySQLdb: ImportError
I have already create mysql database ser with ser_mysql.sh script. I can
show tables of ser database but I can't add domain.
thanks for response
Tuan.
:-) Spend 30 minutes on SER 2.0; it's easier than you think. etc/ser.cfg
is a decent config.
g-)
Eneref wrote:
> If I actually knew anything about how all the new stuff worked, I'd be
> happy to help. ;) Sort of a chicken and egg problem.
>
> Unfortunately, as late, in my copious free time (*cough*), I haven't
> had the time to delve into the SER 2.0 stuff and actually figure out
> for myself how it all meshes together.
>
> N.
>
>
> Greger V. Teigre wrote:
>> heh heh, as iptel.org is an open-source project, we need a sponsor to
>> pay for a technical writer if we want one. Iptego did that for SEMS
>> documentation, but we don't have a documentation sponsor for SER. I'm
>> afraid paid beer does not bring us far...
>>
>> So, we will have to cope with the volunteers we have. An advanced
>> user, like you, is as good a writer as anyone, so if you want to put
>> your keyboard fingers where your mouth is ;-), you are very welcome
>> to sign up as a volunteer on either of our three current
>> documentation efforts:
>> 1. Migration guide (editor: Simon Miles)
>> 2. Reference guide (editor: yours truly)
>> 3. SER - Getting Started (editor: ?)
>>
>> I'm in the process of coordinating the table of contents with Simon,
>> but here's an attempted outline:
>> http://www.iptel.org/suggestion_for_outline_of_new_ser_reference_manual
>>
>> Feel free to sign up for any chapter or maybe editor of the Getting
>> Started guide?!
>> g-)
>>
>> SIP wrote:
>>> Oh don't worry. I won't take it the wrong way. I'll be the first to
>>> tell you that the documentation for SER is pretty close to
>>> unusable. But unfortunately, that's the way most open source
>>> projects are. You have all these coding geniuses building them, and
>>> all these systems geniuses testing them... and not a single one of
>>> them remembers how to convey information to the rest of us. ;)
>>>
>>> What the project lacks is a full-time technical writer -- someone
>>> whose job it is is to corner the developers and ask them what all of
>>> this stuff means (in intricate detail) and not let them go until
>>> they've fully explained all of it. Then he/she can take that
>>> information and translate it into something human beings can
>>> understand.
>>>
>>> This is one reason why good technical writers are expensive, and the
>>> primary reason that most companies and projects 'make do' with
>>> whatever they can find.
>>>
>>> If you know any good technical writers who might be willing to fly
>>> off to Europe and ply some of the SER team with beer enough to get
>>> them talking, we could most certainly use it. I'll pay for the beer. ;)
>>>
>>> N.
>>>
>>>
>>> lists(a)infoway.net wrote:
>>>> Excellent news. Thanks for the feedback. Overall, and please don't
>>>> take this negatively, I think documentation for SER is difficult
>>>> for beginners, so if we have to go through the learning curve
>>>> anyway, we might as well do it in the newer version.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks again
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, May 8, 2007 5:04 pm, SIP <sip(a)arcdiv.com> said:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> For all intents and purposes, SER 2.0 (the new one) is ready for use.
>>>>> The only thing it's really waiting on to be 'stable' is some better
>>>>> documentation. However, it's best, if you're just getting
>>>>> started, to
>>>>> deploy with the new version and maybe muddle your way through a bit
>>>>> until documentation is complete.
>>>>>
>>>>> N.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> lists(a)infoway.net wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> We are planning on deploying a couple of SER servers and
>>>>>> integrate them with
>>>>>> either SEMS or Asterisk for voicemail. However, we are a bit
>>>>>> confused as to which
>>>>>> version of SER to go with? From what we can tell, the latest
>>>>>> stable version is
>>>>>> 0.9.6. However, we know of the new 0.10.X version. Reading up on
>>>>>> the site, there
>>>>>> is some documentation that explains a little bit of the
>>>>>> differences and/or
>>>>>> migration recommendations/steps.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, in an effort to keep life as simple as possible, which
>>>>>> version should we work
>>>>>> with? We are afraid that if we go through a learning cycle with
>>>>>> 0.9.6 we're going
>>>>>> to "suffer" when migrating to the new version, either because of
>>>>>> the learning
>>>>>> curve or because of a potential painful migration process.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any recommendations?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Serusers mailing list
>>>>>> Serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
>>>>>> http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Serusers mailing list
>>> Serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
>>> http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
>>>
>>>
>
>
Im on ser 0.9.6.
Om looking for a simple way to configure my SER to check that all INVITEs coming in on a specific
IP interface are coming from clients that have a valid registration.
I know about the ip.src check but how to do lookups with From: URIs in the registrar is beyond me.
/Stefan
Hi,
I am configuring registrar module and I get the following errors:
0(29188) set_mod_param_regex: parameter <desc_time_order> not found in module <registrar>
0(29188) parse error (88,19-20): Can't set module parameter
when I try to set such module parameters:
modparam("registrar", "desc_time_order", 1)
modparam("registrar", "retry_after", 30)
Are they still supported?
Maybe under different name?
Cheers
Tomasz
Hi All,
I am trying to do something like this:
route[1] {
$var(forwardTo) = "192.168.192.100";
forward($var(forwardTo));
exit;
}
But it do not work.
you know a way to do it?
Thanks
Noel
Hello,
Can some please tell me how can I capture isup-oli field from a incoming
call. We need to capture that to recognize the incoming call from pay phone.
Thank you,
-Jai
Dear all,
starting to build up OpenSER as presence server, I had no mentionable problems. Now, I tried to implement an Apache2 based XCAP server to store presence info, buddy lists etc. there.
I have a problem setting up the XCAP-Lite server v0.9. Searching the web and the mailing list did not lead to a successful answer why the following happens:
After setting up Apache2 with all required modules, virtual host etc. I try to use Eyebeam 1.5 to write the presrules and resource-list.xml to the database. This failes.
I have successfully installed Apache2 with pear (+ extensions), php, mysql support.
I created a virtual host with the following settings:
NameVirtualHost *
<VirtualHost *>
<Location "/">
Dav On #necessary for PUT method
</Location>
ServerName 172.16.167.128
DocumentRoot /var/www/ #/var/www/xcap-root didn't work for GET as well, changed
RewriteEngine On
RewriteLog /var/log/apache2/rewrite.log
RewriteLogLevel 2
RewriteRule /xcap-root/(.*) /xcap-root/index.php
ProxyVia On
</VirtualHost>
I putted all files from XCAP-Lite archive in /var/www/xcap-root.
After using PUT method through Eyebeam (change in contact list) I receive the 204 No content message.
BUT: Not the database content is changed, the putted XML file overwrites index.php instead, which means, further requests fail.
Does anybody know why the access to database does not work? Password etc. in config.php is ok.
Thanks in advance.
Best regards
Sebastian
PS: As I didn't find a mail address of the author of the program, I hope he is also subscribed to that list. There is probably an error in xcap-lib.php on line 766. I think there is a space between function and XCAPclient necessary.
Excellent news. Thanks for the feedback. Overall, and please don't take this negatively, I think documentation for SER is difficult for beginners, so if we have to go through the learning curve anyway, we might as well do it in the newer version.
Thanks again
On Tue, May 8, 2007 5:04 pm, SIP <sip(a)arcdiv.com> said:
> For all intents and purposes, SER 2.0 (the new one) is ready for use.
> The only thing it's really waiting on to be 'stable' is some better
> documentation. However, it's best, if you're just getting started, to
> deploy with the new version and maybe muddle your way through a bit
> until documentation is complete.
>
> N.
>
>
> lists(a)infoway.net wrote:
>> We are planning on deploying a couple of SER servers and integrate them with
>> either SEMS or Asterisk for voicemail. However, we are a bit confused as to which
>> version of SER to go with? From what we can tell, the latest stable version is
>> 0.9.6. However, we know of the new 0.10.X version. Reading up on the site, there
>> is some documentation that explains a little bit of the differences and/or
>> migration recommendations/steps.
>>
>> So, in an effort to keep life as simple as possible, which version should we work
>> with? We are afraid that if we go through a learning cycle with 0.9.6 we're going
>> to "suffer" when migrating to the new version, either because of the learning
>> curve or because of a potential painful migration process.
>>
>> Any recommendations?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Serusers mailing list
>> Serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
>> http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
>>
>
>
Hi Klaus, Alex et al.
I was thinking about the same problem.
My setup has two redundant SIP Proxy/Registrar (OpenSER 1.1) Servers (P1
and P2), no additonal edge proxies. It uses either MySQL cluster or
Master-Master Replication to exchange the state of the location table.
For NAT Processing of REGISTER I use the Nathelper module, which writes
the original (inside NAT) address to the 'contact' column and the
information, where the REGISTER request was received from (outside NAT
socket) goes to 'received' column of the location table.
e.g.:
contact column: sip:behoe@192.168.1.56:2051
received column: sip:130.56.88.20:5432
When an INVITE arrives at P1 (or P2), the 'contact' column will go to the
R-URI and the 'received' value will be used as the next target of the
INVITE request.
INVITE requests that do not arrive at the proxy, where the UA
has registered, have (depending on the NAT type) some likelihood to fail.
Appart from that and as long as there is no path value saved in the
location table, this work fine. If there is a path value, its content will
go to the Route header field and the the request is sent to the topmost
Route entry. Therefore it looses the information that was stored in the
'received' column....:-(
The preserve this information and to make sure that LL requests are
routed via the proxy, the UA has registered to, I have some idea, that uses
path. (Unfortunately not all of my UAs support 'outbound'...:-( ):
When the REGISTER arrives at the Proxy P1, I would insert a Path header
field with the address of P1 (i.e. the IP address and port of the proxy
processing the request)
Furthermore I would add a new header field parameter to the contact header
field (let's call it "extsock" for the time being) containing the external
NAT socket (i.e. the same information that also goes to 'received' column)
e.g.
Path: <sip:136.59.10.85:5060;lr>,
Contact: <sip:behoe@192.168.1.56:2051;extsock=sip:130.56.88.20:5432;lr>
This will then be stored in the 'path' / 'contact' columns of the
location table at save().
When the INVITE arrives e.g. at P2, it does the location lookup: The
Route header field will be populated with the content of the 'path'
column and the R-URI will be rewritten with the 'contact' column. This
means the request will be normally forwarded to P1 (topmost Route).
The SIP INVITE looks e.g. as follows:
INVITE sip:behoe@192.168.1.56:2051;extsock=sip:130.56.88.20:5432 SIP/2.0
Route:<sip:136.59.10.85:5060;lr>
[...]
After the request arrives at P1, it checks, whether there is an extsock
parameter in the R-URI, and if yes, it uses its values as the next target
of the request i.e. sip:130.56.88.20:5432
(Maybe P1 could even remove the extsock parameter from the
R-URI at this stage to make some Nokia E-Series' phones happier...)
My questions:
- Is this idea feasible? Does it work in any case? Any issues with
forking?
- Could it easily be configured to OpenSER, or is there a change in the
source code necessairy?
- How much does it break SIP standards? ;-)
Looking forward to your feedback.
Have a nice weekend!
cheers,
Bernie
> On Wednesday 02 May 2007 08:33, Klaus Darilion wrote:
>> Hi Alex!
>>
>> Without having done this: You can configure the SIP proxies as load
>> balancers too which distribute the load over all the proxy/registrars
>> (including itself).
>
> I thought of that, but then every REGISTER needs to be forwarded to another
> proxy to get the path info right. This result in a great amount of traffic
> between the proxies and extra processing power. I want the REGISTER request
> to be handled on the first host it arrives on. Then only some INVITE's need
> to create inter-proxy traffic.
