Hi All,
Any idea, how to change registration timeout value in ser.cfg so that my phone register with the server every 5 minutes in place of default 1 minute.
Please advise.
Regards, Suvendu.
________________________________________________________________________ Yahoo! India Matrimony: Find your life partner online Go to: http://yahoo.shaadi.com/india-matrimony
Hi,
--- Suvendu Sethi suvenduji@yahoo.co.in wrote:
Any idea, how to change registration timeout value in ser.cfg so that my phone register with the server every 5 minutes in place of default 1 minute.
Try adding these headers when you get REGISTER messages. Change 120 to any appropriate value you need: append_hf ("Expires: 120\r\n"); append_to_reply ("Expires: 120\r\n");
Cheers,
===== Girish Gopinath gr_sh2003@yahoo.com
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com
Hi Girish,
when you use append_hf() the modification will not reflect on the message only when forwarded. So even if you add the Expired hdr, it will not be consider by registrar module.
More appropriate is to use "min_expires" registrar parameter.
Best regards, Marian
Girish wrote:
Hi,
--- Suvendu Sethi suvenduji@yahoo.co.in wrote:
Any idea, how to change registration timeout value in ser.cfg so that my phone register with the server every 5 minutes in place of default 1 minute.
Try adding these headers when you get REGISTER messages. Change 120 to any appropriate value you need: append_hf ("Expires: 120\r\n"); append_to_reply ("Expires: 120\r\n");
Cheers,
===== Girish Gopinath gr_sh2003@yahoo.com
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com
Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
Hello,
--- Marian Dumitru marian.dumitru@voice-sistem.ro wrote:
when you use append_hf() the modification will not reflect on the message only when forwarded. So even if you add the Expired hdr, it will
I think you meant 'will reflect'. right?
Here we use append_hf and append_to_reply to set the expires timeout with our softphone. And haven't noticed any problem so far. May be append_to_reply is doing the trick.
More appropriate is to use "min_expires" registrar parameter.
Thanks for this info. I did not know about this.
Best regards, Marian
Best Regards,
===== Girish Gopinath gr_sh2003@yahoo.com
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com
Hi Girish,
Maybe my sentence was a little too ambiguous :-). Just to rephrase: "when you use append_hf() the modification will be reflected on the message only when forwarded".
If you try your approach, it will be a discrepancy between what SER and the phones think the expire value is. SER will consider the one received in the original req. (it will ignore the new value forced from script via append_hf() ) and the client will consider the value received in reply ( the one forced from script via append_to_reply() ).
You can easily check this via "serctl ul show" and to see if the expire time is the one you force from script.
Best regards, Marian
Girish wrote:
Hello,
--- Marian Dumitru marian.dumitru@voice-sistem.ro wrote:
when you use append_hf() the modification will not reflect on the message only when forwarded. So even if you add the Expired hdr, it will
I think you meant 'will reflect'. right?
Here we use append_hf and append_to_reply to set the expires timeout with our softphone. And haven't noticed any problem so far. May be append_to_reply is doing the trick.
More appropriate is to use "min_expires" registrar parameter.
Thanks for this info. I did not know about this.
Best regards, Marian
Best Regards,
===== Girish Gopinath gr_sh2003@yahoo.com
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com
Hi,
Thanks for you inputs. It's working fine now using min_expires.
Regards, Suvendu.
--- Marian Dumitru marian.dumitru@voice-sistem.ro wrote:
Hi Girish,
Maybe my sentence was a little too ambiguous :-). Just to rephrase: "when you use append_hf() the modification will be reflected on the message only when forwarded".
If you try your approach, it will be a discrepancy between what SER and the phones think the expire value is. SER will consider the one received in the original req. (it will ignore the new value forced from script via append_hf() ) and the client will consider the value received in reply ( the one forced from script via append_to_reply() ).
You can easily check this via "serctl ul show" and to see if the expire time is the one you force from script.
Best regards, Marian
Girish wrote:
Hello,
--- Marian Dumitru
marian.dumitru@voice-sistem.ro wrote:
when you use append_hf() the modification will not
reflect on the
message only when forwarded. So even if you add
the Expired hdr, it will
I think you meant 'will reflect'. right?
Here we use append_hf and append_to_reply to set
the expires timeout with our softphone. And
haven't noticed any problem so far. May be
append_to_reply is doing the trick.
More appropriate is to use "min_expires" registrar
parameter.
Thanks for this info. I did not know about this.
Best regards, Marian
Best Regards,
===== Girish Gopinath gr_sh2003@yahoo.com
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com
-- Voice Sistem http://www.voice-sistem.ro
________________________________________________________________________ Yahoo! India Matrimony: Find your life partner online Go to: http://yahoo.shaadi.com/india-matrimony
Hello,
--- Marian Dumitru marian.dumitru@voice-sistem.ro wrote:
If you try your approach, it will be a discrepancy between what SER and the phones think the expire value is. SER will consider the one received in the original req. (it will ignore the new value forced from script via append_hf() ) and the client will consider the value received in reply ( the one forced from script via append_to_reply() ).
Thanks!
Yes. You are correct. RFC says that the registrar should honour the expires parameter/header in the REGISTER request. It can add an expires header if it is not present in the request. Our softphones dont send expires parameter in the requests, may be the reason why there are no issues.
Best regards, Marian
Best Regards,
===== Girish Gopinath gr_sh2003@yahoo.com
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com
One small note to the topic. Registrar can shorten the expires value but must not extend it. I made a mistake while implementing min_expires parameter, the parameter would extend the expiration interval, but the registrar should reject such a registration instead. This is what RFC3261 says and I will change the registrar to reject such registrations later.
Jan.
On 15-11 09:34, Girish wrote:
Hello,
--- Marian Dumitru marian.dumitru@voice-sistem.ro wrote:
If you try your approach, it will be a discrepancy between what SER and the phones think the expire value is. SER will consider the one received in the original req. (it will ignore the new value forced from script via append_hf() ) and the client will consider the value received in reply ( the one forced from script via append_to_reply() ).
Thanks!
Yes. You are correct. RFC says that the registrar should honour the expires parameter/header in the REGISTER request. It can add an expires header if it is not present in the request. Our softphones dont send expires parameter in the requests, may be the reason why there are no issues.
Best regards, Marian
Best Regards,
===== Girish Gopinath gr_sh2003@yahoo.com
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com
Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
Hi Jan,
Thanks for your valuable input. At this moment, I am managing this by modifying the Registration Timeout values to 3 minutes in both SIP phones and SER min_expires parameter. SIP phones send registration requests in 3 minutes and it works fine.
Regards, Suvendu.
--- Jan Janak jan@iptel.org wrote:
One small note to the topic. Registrar can shorten the expires value but must not extend it. I made a mistake while implementing min_expires parameter, the parameter would extend the expiration interval, but the registrar should reject such a registration instead. This is what RFC3261 says and I will change the registrar to reject such registrations later.
Jan.
On 15-11 09:34, Girish wrote:
Hello,
--- Marian Dumitru
marian.dumitru@voice-sistem.ro wrote:
If you try your approach, it will be a
discrepancy between what SER and
the phones think the expire value is. SER will
consider the one received
in the original req. (it will ignore the new
value forced from script
via append_hf() ) and the client will consider
the value received in
reply ( the one forced from script via
append_to_reply() ).
Thanks!
Yes. You are correct. RFC says that the registrar
should honour the expires parameter/header in
the REGISTER request. It can add an expires header
if it is not present in the request. Our
softphones dont send expires parameter in the
requests, may be the reason why there are no issues.
Best regards, Marian
Best Regards,
===== Girish Gopinath gr_sh2003@yahoo.com
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com
Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
________________________________________________________________________ Yahoo! India Matrimony: Find your life partner online Go to: http://yahoo.shaadi.com/india-matrimony
Hi,
--- Jan Janak jan@iptel.org wrote:
One small note to the topic. Registrar can shorten the expires value but must not extend it. I made a mistake while implementing min_expires parameter, the parameter would extend the expiration interval, but the registrar should reject such a registration instead. This is what RFC3261 says and I will change the registrar to reject such registrations later.
One question regarding the registration expiry. I tested the append_to_reply() with Polycom IP500 phone, which sends an 'Expires:3600' header. It was replaced with 'Expires:120'. Now the '200 OK' has an Expires header with 120 as the value, and a contact header with expires=3600 parameter. Please see the ngrep trace attached. As far as i understand, the registrar should (in most cases) accept the expires value in the REGISTER request. But here the reply is transmitted with 2 different parameters.
Question: Can this be allowed? Can a reply have 2 different expires values?
No problems found in the working of phone though. Polycom accepted 120 as the expires, which again i beleive is wrong. I think expires parameter should be given priority. Right?
---------------------------------------- REGISTER sip:XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX:5060 SIP/2.0. Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.254.116;branch=z9hG4bK79970c8634833F95. From: "Girish" sip:girish-testacc-com@XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX;tag=A05656C2-24685943. To: sip:girish-testacc-com@XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX. CSeq: 5 REGISTER. Call-ID: c80027a6-d7be6994-fae0d0b5@192.168.254.116. Contact: sip:girish-testacc-com@192.168.254.116;methods="INVITE, ACK, BYE, CANCEL, OPTIONS, INFO, MESSAGE, SUBSCRIBE, NOTIFY, PRACK, UPDATE, REFER". User-Agent: PolycomSoundPointIP-SPIP_500-UA/1.3.1. Max-Forwards: 70. Expires: 3600. Content-Length: 0. .
SIP/2.0 200 OK. Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.254.116;branch=z9hG4bK79970c8634833F95;rport=65168;received=XX.XXX.XX.XX. From: "Girish" sip:girish-testacc-com@XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX;tag=A05656C2-24685943. To: sip:girish-testacc-com@XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX;tag=b27e1a1d33761e85846fc98f5f3a7e58.16fd. CSeq: 5 REGISTER. Call-ID: c80027a6-d7be6994-fae0d0b5@192.168.254.116. Expires: 120. Contact: sip:girish-testacc-com@XX.XXX.XX.XX:65168;q=0.00;expires=3600. Server: Sip EXpress router (0.8.14 (i386/linux)). Content-Length: 0. Warning: 392 XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX:5060 "Noisy feedback tells: pid=7754 req_src_ip=XX.XXX.XX.XX req_src_port=65168 in_uri=sip:XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX:5060 out_uri=sip:XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX:5060 via_cnt==1". --------------------------------
TIA & Regards,
===== Girish Gopinath gr_sh2003@yahoo.com
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! http://my.yahoo.com
Hi
Just wanted to get a insight as to whether its best to use aliases or callfwd for the scenario below:
I have inbound pstn numbers assigned to SIP addresses. Now what i am currently doing is to assign this PSTN number as a alias to a sip address
just as I would set 1111 to iqbal@sip.domain.com I have set 0207xxxxxxx to iqbal@sip.domain.com
BUT I dont think this is the best way, since it then interferes with "actual" aliases that I may have ...internal ones.
Can I instead use a call forward, so thay I enter the 0207 number in my forward tabel instead...or will that not work, having said this again i think it will interfere with my normal aliases. Has anyone setup a separate table/entity to do inbound number processing, and keep it separate/distinct from internally generated numbers
Iqbal
-
Girish -
Iqbal Gandham -
Jan Janak -
Marian Dumitru -
Suvendu Sethi