sr-users

sr-users@lists.kamailio.org

18 participants
37469 discussions

[Kamailio-Users] New listen IP without restart
by catalina oancea 23 Apr '09

23 Apr '09

Hello everybody, Does anybody know if there is a way to add a new listen line in kamailio.cfg and make kamailio start listening on that IP without restarting the server? Thanks a lot Catalina

4 5

[Serusers] is serusers@lists.iptel.org mailing list still in use?
by Leon Li 23 Apr '09

23 Apr '09

Hi, I am just wondering whether serusers(a)lists.iptel.org is still the one to request support? I didn't received any emails in last several days. Cheers Leon

2 1

Re: [Kamailio-Users] Multiple SIP Proxy Environment / Socket Information
by Iñaki Baz Castillo 21 Apr '09

21 Apr '09

El Martes, 21 de Abril de 2009, Brandon Armstead escribió: > Inaki, Please, mantain the thread in the maillist. > Thanks for the input -- that does look similar to what I'm looking to > do, however not 100%. From looking at the RFC it looks as if there is > always a certain path being traversed, however in my case, its more of a > "this is not the server that holds this user location socket binding, lets > forward to the server that does". > > So in essence: > > UA1 can register to P1, P2, P3, and so on..... > > However it does not register to P3 via the means of UA1 REGISTER -> P1 -> > P2 -> P3 (REGISTRATION). > > It simply registers directly to P1, or P2, or P3, etc.... > > In which case upon user lookup: lookup("location"), I want to be able to > say "Hey I do not hold the socket for this registration, forward to server > that does to do the actual lookup(location) and t_relay() to the UA. Yes, it's a different scenario. You could do some trick: - When P1 receives a REGISTER it sets a bflag for it (bflag 1). - When P2 receives a REGISTER it sets a bflag for it (bflag 2). - When P3receives a REGISTER it sets a bflag for it (bflag 3). When P1 receives a request and performs location for that AoR, it will also extract the bflags, so P1 checks if bflag 1 is on. If not and bflag 2 is on, then it routes (by setting $du => without changing the resolved RURI) the request to P2. :) -- Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc(a)aliax.net>

2 2

[Kamailio-Users] Disable auto ACK
by kévin l'heveder 21 Apr '09

21 Apr '09

Hi, i want to generate my own ACK after a OK ( After ringing). but even if i drop the OK in my reply_route a ACK is auto generated by Kamailio and sent How could i prevent this behavior ?? I found some clues in the sources : *#define no_autoack(_t_) ((_t_)->flags&T_NO_AUTOACK_FLAG)* But i didn't see how i could flag a message to disable AUTOACK If someone have an idea or THE response, that would be great!! Thanks. Koon

2 1

[Kamailio-Users] configuration
by shiva prasad 21 Apr '09

21 Apr '09

Hi All, I've successfully installed kamailio 1.5x version on fedora 9 os, could you please let me know is it possible to configure Ekiga(client) to connect kamailio server,. if possible, could you please let me know how to configure the client? Thanks in advance. -- Regards, Shivaprasad BS

2 1

[Kamailio-Users] help using rewrite prefix
by Carlos A. Alvarez 20 Apr '09

20 Apr '09

I need help setting up carrierroute using the rewrite prefix and the strip function. It seem like every time I use the Rewrite Prfix function the carrierroute module will rewrite the prefix, but then I don't get certain reply messages on kamailio. At least from what I can see on the log. INFO:carrierroute:cr_do_route: uri 5555550001 was rewritten to sip:0115555550001@aslab.commx.net, carrier 1, domain 10 INFO:carrierroute:rewrite_uri_recursor: URI or prefix tree nodes empty, empty rule list INFO:carrierroute:cr_do_route: rewrite_uri_recursor doesn't complete, uri 0115555550001, carrier 1, domain 10 Is this normal behavior? I also noticed that some messages coming back from the host are not being processed by kamailio. For example on this particular call I purposely get a 604 from the server. The thing is I can't process a failure route for this message, because kamailio doesn't see is, even though it is being sent back to the server. Also when I use the Strip function is looks like carrierroute does a second lookup on the route table. In the example below I am calling a number using the prefix 551... The route table is below. +----+---------+--------+--------------+-------+------+------+-------+-----------------+----------------+----------------+------------------------+ | id | carrier | domain | scan_prefix | flags | mask | prob | strip | rewrite_host | rewrite_prefix | rewrite_suffix | description | +----+---------+--------+--------------+-------+------+------+-------+-----------------+----------------+----------------+------------------------+ | 30 | 1 | 1 | 551 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 10.10.10.1 | | | LD-1 | 31 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 10.10.10.1 | | | LD | Log for that call INFO:carrierroute:cr_do_route: uri 5515555550004 was rewritten to sip:15555550004@10.10.10.1, carrier 1, domain 1 INFO:carrierroute:cr_do_route: uri 15555550004 was rewritten to sip:15555550004@10.10.10.1, carrier 1, domain 1 Carrier found!! ("1", "131.226.0.144", "15555550004", "15555550004", "COMMX-LD"); Now please note that if I remove route id 31 then the call log looks like it is below: INFO:carrierroute:cr_do_route: uri 5515555550004 was rewritten to sip:15555550004@10.10.10.1, carrier 1, domain 1 INFO:carrierroute:rewrite_uri_recursor: URI or prefix tree nodes empty, empty rule list INFO:carrierroute:cr_do_route: rewrite_uri_recursor doesn't complete, uri 15555550004, carrier 1, domain 1 Please help!!! Carlos It will also help if there was complete routing example using carrierroute v 1.5.0, since the one in the wiki is outdated. Thanks.

2 8

Re: [Kamailio-Users] bidirectionnal chat and presence sharing between a SIP and a jabber user
by Daniel-Constantin Mierla 20 Apr '09

20 Apr '09

Please cc all the time to mailing lists. Emailing privately will make the message dropped. Also, mailing list has the benefit of providing access to other people that might know better the answer. Thanks, Daniel On 04/20/2009 01:18 PM, rachid wrote: > *Hello, > I use the purplemap table to mapping sip uri and jabber client,so i > want to have a bidirectionnal chat and sharing between a dip and > jabber users > > I tried with purple modules* > > 2009/4/20 Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda(a)gmail.com > <mailto:miconda@gmail.com>> > > Hello, > > > On 04/17/2009 11:22 AM, rachid wrote: > > Hello all, > > someone can help me to configure kamailio to i was able to have a > bidirectionnal chat and presence sharing between a SIP and a > jabber user ? > thank you > > what is the problem? Did you get or not any communication between > sip and xmpp? Have you tried with xmpp or purple modules? > > Cheers, > Daniel > > -- > Daniel-Constantin Mierla > http://www.asipto.com/ > > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------ > BAHA Rachid > Elève ingénieur en 3ème année à l'INPT, Rabat > GSM:(+33) 0619787609 > > -- Daniel-Constantin Mierla http://www.asipto.com/

1 0

[Kamailio-Users] Question about route[4] for NAT
by x-kamailio＠sidell.org 20 Apr '09

20 Apr '09

Sorry for the potentially stupid question... I'm trying to make sense of the standard kamailio.cfg file. At the top, it says to remove the #n# comments to enable nat processing. Looking down in the code, I see that one of the sections to be enabled is route[4]. But, no where else in the file do I see that route(4) is ever called. Is the cfg file missing something, or is route(4) called in some way that is not apparent from reading the file? Thanks! -- Mark Sidell Partner Forte, Inc. 919-942-7068 fax 919-969-2844 www.forteinc.com

2 1

[Kamailio-Users] NAT & Branching in Parallel Forking Scenarios
by Brandon Armstead 20 Apr '09

20 Apr '09

Hello Guys, Going to say thanks for any input ahead of time. My question is currently we may have a scenario where we have a client using several UAC's registered to the same username. Now what I've seen is that sometimes one endpoint of User A may be NATed, another may be public. This seems to be causing some call flow control issues in a sense for when we handle for NAT / vs NOT NAT, at the time of a request and all of this is in parallel being handled. Example Scenario. User A calls User B -- (both internal). User B has end points X (NAT), Y(PUBLIC), and Z(NAT). So a call is being branched to X, Y, and Z in parallel. Now we fix_nated_contact for endpoint X, next we go to Y, however we've already fixed_nated_contact, thus this call is deemed bad, and then Z continues. Any thoughts / examples / suggestions for these types of scenarios? This is just an example one, one particular case where issues we have seen is more like follows: PSTN Calls User B (external to internal) User B has the same previous end points (X,Y,Z) + (PSTN End Points that we are adding in parallel to fork to). Same type issue, same type scenario. The end result of the issues are lack of audio, mis routed contacts, etc. So any help and input is appreciated, thanks!

3 2

[Kamailio-Users] run openser and asterisks in one box
by Metshet Seleshi 20 Apr '09

20 Apr '09

hi all, is it possible to run openser and asterisks in one box, I have googled but all the result I got have rewritehostport("X.X.X.X:5060) with a diffrent IP than the server IP, I am assuming either they have 2 network card or refering to another host . but will it be possible to put them togather? if so how, thanks, please help

7 9

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