sr-users May 2007

sr-users@lists.kamailio.org

164 participants
295 discussions

by Bruno Machado

Hi I'm in trouble with the new version 1.2.0. Before migration to 1.2.0, the LCR table was working without problems. The table has these lines now: prefix----------from_uri-------grp_id--------priority 0123456------------------------------ 1 ---------------1 0________------^sip:123.*--------- 2 ---------------0 Ok. The LCR documentation tells that the column 'from_uri' must be a regular expression in this version. The route selected is the first line. I'd like to route the voip number 123 through GW 2, but it doesn't happens. I already reloaded the table, restarted the proxy... all this things. Certainly, I'm doing something wrong. What I should do? Thanks in advance. Bruno Machado __________________________________________________ Fale com seus amigos de graça com o novo Yahoo! Messenger http://br.messenger.yahoo.com/

17 years

[Users] Increase or Decrease openser debug value without restarting openser

by mailinglist-openser-users

Hi, openser 1.2.0. In the "openser.cfg", there is the "debug" variable which increase or decrease the verbosity of openser and its modules as well as the xlog I would like to know if it is possible to change the debug value without having to restart openser in order to be able to troubleshoot a problem without having to restart openser. Regards, Jerome -- Jerome

17 years

[Users] mediaproxy errors

by Helge Waastad

Hi, I'm running mediaproxy 1.8.2 and have started to se: error: uncaptured python exception, closing channel <rtphandler.CommandHandler connected <ip-address>:42224 at 0x2a99dff518> (socket.error:(9, 'Bad file descriptor') [/usr/lib64/python2.3/asyncore.py|readwrite|88] [/usr/lib64/python2.3/asyncore.py|handle_write_event|397] [/etc/mediaproxy/modules/rtphandler.py|handle_write|453] [/usr/lib64/python2.3/asyncore.py|send|337]) does anyone knw what this means? br hw -- Helge Waastad Senior developer Smartnet / Datametrix Et selskap i Ignis gruppen Martin Lingesvei 25 1367 Snarøya Postboks 494 1327 Lysaker Telefon: +47 67830017 Mobil: +47 48095461 Support: +47 67830045 - support(a)smartnet.no www.smartnet.no

17 years

[Serusers] record_route..........TCP ??

by KUMAR

Hi all, I am using SER-0.9.6 and the problem i'm having is this. When using the following ser.cfg, it works well when the transport UDP is used. But when transport TCP is used, then it only results in one way IM, only from the UA from which the INVITE is being sent. Moreover, when record_route is used instead of record_route_preset, then even that one way IM doesn't work. But it works well with UDP. Can anyone please point me as to where the problem might be?? Thank you in advance. kumar

17 years

Re: [Serusers] help with error

by Klaus Darilion

A client REGISTERs and REGISTERs and REGISTERs and somehow ser does not detect that this is always the same client and creates a new entry in the location table. This may happen e.g. with buggy NATs which changes the port for every REGISTER or with buggy clients. Thus, limit the number of max entries in location table: http://www.openser.org/docs/modules/0.9.x/registrar.html#AEN167 and set desc_time_order to 1 http://www.openser.org/docs/modules/0.9.x/registrar.html#AEN167 although this is openser I think these parameters also exists in ser. There is no need to change MAX_BRANCHES. Fix the problem by limiting the entries in the location table. regards klaus Steve Blair wrote: > > Klaus: > > It seems the only way to increase the limit is to change MAX_BRANCHES > then re-compile SER. I do not think that approach is best. Can you think > of any other reason why this error would be generated? > > Thanks,Steve > > Klaus Darilion wrote: >> I guess there are more then "max-branches" entries in location table >> (for this user). >> >> regards >> klaus >> >> Steve Blair wrote: >>> >>> I'm getting the following error on a ser-0.9.7 system and I cannot >>> figure out why. I see the message originates in dset.c but the cause >>> of the error is unclear. Any thoughts? >>> >>> Thanks,Steve >>> >>> ERROR: append_branch: max nr of branches exceeded >>> lookup(): Error while appending a branch >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Serusers mailing list >>> Serusers(a)lists.iptel.org >>> http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers >>

17 years

[Serusers] shared memory query

by Gaurav Kansal

Hi The shared memory which SER process will allocate depend on value of SHM_MEM_SIZE in config.h. In a scenario where I am only establishing the calls and not releasing, sooner or later the application will run out of memory. What is the behavior of SER then? Regards, Gaurav Kansal

17 years

[Serusers] Are there efforts to multi-thread SER?

by Heaton, Eric D

Hi All, Are there any efforts within the community here to multithread any aspect of the SER project (i.e. either in the "core" functionality, or over any of the plug-ins), for example, to have it run more efficiently, provide for more bandwidth, etc. on a multi-core CPU? I'm starting to look into the topic myself, and don't want to duplicate work; at the least, I'd want to add to it! Thanks in advance. -- Eric

17 years

[Users] BYE message without Route header field

by rubel Ahmed

Hi, I am using Openser-1.2.0 with dialog module. When I make a call then full session is saved in dialog correctly and when bye received then the session will be free. but when the route header feild is not available in BYE message then the session is not removed at receive BYE, Because This BYE message is not caught bye dlg_onroute function. Now can I destroy this session in dlg_onreq function? Thanks BDRubel

17 years

[Serusers] help with error

by Steve Blair

I'm getting the following error on a ser-0.9.7 system and I cannot figure out why. I see the message originates in dset.c but the cause of the error is unclear. Any thoughts? Thanks,Steve ERROR: append_branch: max nr of branches exceeded lookup(): Error while appending a branch

17 years

[Users] Proxy/Registrar and NAT

by Alex Hermann

Hello list members, I'd like to use multiple proxies/registrars in a SRV managed failover/load-balancing situation. For NAT purposes I could use a couple of dedicated load-balancers with path support to store the NAT enabled route in the location table. The registrars have a shared location table on a database server. This situation works, but.... Is there a possibility to skip the load-balancers? I want the proxy/registrar to store the NAT-route somehow in the location table, so that when the contact needs to be contacted, the proxy can determine if it can send the request itself, or it needs to forward it via one of the other proxies (the one with which the contact has the NAT relation). I hope you understand the topology, otherwise I might need to create some ascii-art. -- Greetings, Alex Hermann Speakup

17 years

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 May 2007