2 Jun
2003
2 Jun
'03
5:26 p.m.
Got another oddity at the same site as before. This morning, th proxy
server appears to have simply stopped processing INVITE requests. It
continued to process and log REGISTER requests. The ngrep process I
have running to log traffic shows the inbound INVITE request, but
nothing after it, no response, no additional INVITE, nothing.
Again, I have ngrep traffic logs for the period if they would help.
Although I have not yet increased the debug level on the process. Was
hoping something would come of the information I forwarded to serhelp
first. However, I'll be increasing the logging level tonight.
Other ideas?
--
Jamin W. Collins
Remember, root always has a loaded gun. Don't run around with it unless
you absolutely need it. -- Vineet Kumar
2 Jun
2 Jun
8:26 p.m.
please, send us logs, ngreps and config file -- we haven't observed such
behaviour elsewhere and have thus no quick answer. Use serhelp(a)lists.iptel.org
so that it is not dumped to the whole mailing list.
thanks,
-jiri
At 04:26 PM 6/2/2003, Jamin W. Collins wrote:
Got another oddity at the same site as before. This
morning, th proxy
server appears to have simply stopped processing INVITE requests. It
continued to process and log REGISTER requests. The ngrep process I
have running to log traffic shows the inbound INVITE request, but
nothing after it, no response, no additional INVITE, nothing.
Again, I have ngrep traffic logs for the period if they would help.
Although I have not yet increased the debug level on the process. Was
hoping something would come of the information I forwarded to serhelp
first. However, I'll be increasing the logging level tonight.
Other ideas?
--
Jamin W. Collins
Remember, root always has a loaded gun. Don't run around with it unless
you absolutely need it. -- Vineet Kumar
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
--
Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/
8:40 p.m.
New subject: [Serusers] Forwarding to another number if busy
I've asked this question before.
I realize it is a little out of context.
But, if anyone can give me a hint how to forward
to another number if I try to call a busy number
I would appreciate it.
Thanks,
---greg
Greg Fausak
August.Net Services, LLC
9:48 p.m.
New subject: [Serusers] Forwarding to another number if busy
t_on_negative along with reply_route, or better named in 8.11
t_on_failure along with failure_route can do that. They simply
capture all cases which resulted in a downstream failure
(negative reply or non-responsive UAS). They don't care if it
is "busy", "DnD" or whatsoever. (8.11 could do more about that
if needed.)
e.g.,
...
t_on_negative(1);
t_relay();
...
reply_route[1] {
revert_uri();
rewritehostport("voicemail.com");
append_uri();
}
There is currently no way to personalize forwrding -- in the example
above, you simply change hostname in a fixed manner. Personalized
forwarding should not be any difficult development effort, if needed.
Also, there is a first version of voicemail component in 8.11.
-jiri
At 07:40 PM 6/2/2003, Greg Fausak wrote:
I've asked this question before.
I realize it is a little out of context.
But, if anyone can give me a hint how to forward
to another number if I try to call a busy number
I would appreciate it.
Thanks,
---greg
Greg Fausak
August.Net Services, LLC
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
--
Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/
4 Jun
4 Jun
4:20 p.m.
New subject: [Serusers] Forwarding to another number if busy
Jiri,
Thank you for the follow up.
What I'm thinking about is having say 3 numbers:
1001(a)domain.com
1002(a)domain.com
1003(a)domain.com
Only 1001(a)domain.com is a published number.
If someone calls 1001(a)domain.com and that number
is in use, I want to forward to 1002(a)domain.com, and if
that is in use, forward to 1003(a)domain.com. Finally, if the
last one is busy, a busy is returned.
I understand the voicemail.com domain forwarding below.
I guess I'll try the same technique with 'setuser("1002");'.
I'll report how it works.
---greg
t_on_negative along with reply_route, or better named in 8.11
t_on_failure along with failure_route can do that. They simply
capture all cases which resulted in a downstream failure
(negative reply or non-responsive UAS). They don't care if it
is "busy", "DnD" or whatsoever. (8.11 could do more about that
if needed.)
e.g.,
...
t_on_negative(1);
t_relay();
...
reply_route[1] {
revert_uri();
rewritehostport("voicemail.com");
append_uri();
}
There is currently no way to personalize forwrding -- in the example
above, you simply change hostname in a fixed manner. Personalized
forwarding should not be any difficult development effort, if needed.
Also, there is a first version of voicemail component in 8.11.
-jiri
At 07:40 PM 6/2/2003, Greg Fausak wrote:
I've asked this question before.
I realize it is a little out of context.
But, if anyone can give me a hint how to forward
to another number if I try to call a busy number
I would appreciate it.
Thanks,
---greg
Greg Fausak
August.Net Services, LLC
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
--
Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/
9:02 p.m.
New subject: [Serusers] Forwarding to another number if busy
'setuser("1002");' works, but it is a burden of static configuration --
you
don't want to do that for every user. A database lookup at this place would
do a much better job. We will look at it, once we complete current release
and move from the frozen status.
-jiri
At 03:20 PM 6/4/2003, Greg Fausak wrote:
Jiri,
Thank you for the follow up.
What I'm thinking about is having say 3 numbers:
1001(a)domain.com
1002(a)domain.com
1003(a)domain.com
Only 1001(a)domain.com is a published number.
If someone calls 1001(a)domain.com and that number
is in use, I want to forward to 1002(a)domain.com, and if
that is in use, forward to 1003(a)domain.com. Finally, if the
last one is busy, a busy is returned.
I understand the voicemail.com domain forwarding below.
I guess I'll try the same technique with 'setuser("1002");'.
I'll report how it works.
---greg
--
Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/
t_on_negative along with reply_route, or better named in 8.11
t_on_failure along with failure_route can do that. They simply
capture all cases which resulted in a downstream failure
(negative reply or non-responsive UAS). They don't care if it
is "busy", "DnD" or whatsoever. (8.11 could do more about that
if needed.)
e.g.,
...
t_on_negative(1);
t_relay();
...
reply_route[1] {
revert_uri();
rewritehostport("voicemail.com");
append_uri();
}
There is currently no way to personalize forwrding -- in the example
above, you simply change hostname in a fixed manner. Personalized
forwarding should not be any difficult development effort, if needed.
Also, there is a first version of voicemail component in 8.11.
-jiri
At 07:40 PM 6/2/2003, Greg Fausak wrote:
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers I've asked this question before.
I realize it is a little out of context.
But, if anyone can give me a hint how to forward
to another number if I try to call a busy number
I would appreciate it.
Thanks,
---greg
Greg Fausak
August.Net Services, LLC
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
--
Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/
9:21 p.m.
New subject: [Serusers] Forwarding to another number if busy
Right,
I will write a module, something like:
alias()
Except, perhaps...
forward()
Is that the right approach? The a forward table in
the database that contains (at least) :
User_id forward_id
Where user_id is a number, and if that number is
busy (or unavailable) then forward the request to forward_id.
Now that I think about it, this is exactly like the
alias() call, isn't it?
---greg
-----Original Message-----
From: serusers-admin(a)lists.iptel.org
[mailto:serusers-admin@lists.iptel.org] On Behalf Of Jiri Kuthan
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 1:02 PM
To: Greg Fausak; serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
Cc: sip(a)august.net
Subject: RE: [Serusers] Forwarding to another number if busy
'setuser("1002");' works, but it is a burden of static
configuration -- you
don't want to do that for every user. A database lookup at
this place would
do a much better job. We will look at it, once we complete
current release
and move from the frozen status.
-jiri
At 03:20 PM 6/4/2003, Greg Fausak wrote:
--
Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
Jiri,
Thank you for the follow up.
What I'm thinking about is having say 3 numbers:
1001(a)domain.com
1002(a)domain.com
1003(a)domain.com
Only 1001(a)domain.com is a published number.
If someone calls 1001(a)domain.com and that number
is in use, I want to forward to 1002(a)domain.com, and if
that is in use, forward to 1003(a)domain.com. Finally, if the
last one is busy, a busy is returned.
I understand the voicemail.com domain forwarding below.
I guess I'll try the same technique with 'setuser("1002");'.
I'll report how it works.
---greg
>
>
> t_on_negative along with reply_route, or better named in 8.11
> t_on_failure along with failure_route can do that. They simply
> capture all cases which resulted in a downstream failure
> (negative reply or non-responsive UAS). They don't care if it
> is "busy", "DnD" or whatsoever. (8.11 could do more about that
> if needed.)
>
> e.g.,
> ...
> t_on_negative(1);
> t_relay();
> ...
> reply_route[1] {
> revert_uri();
> rewritehostport("voicemail.com");
> append_uri();
> }
>
> There is currently no way to personalize forwrding -- in
the example
> above, you simply change hostname in a fixed
manner. Personalized
> forwarding should not be any difficult development effort,
if needed.
Also, there is a first version of voicemail component in 8.11.
-jiri
At 07:40 PM 6/2/2003, Greg Fausak wrote:
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers I've asked this question before.
I realize it is a little out of context.
But, if anyone can give me a hint how to forward
to another number if I try to call a busy number
I would appreciate it.
Thanks,
---greg
Greg Fausak
August.Net Services, LLC
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
--
Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/
11:45 p.m.
New subject: [Serusers] Forwarding to another number if busy
Indeed -- one could reuse the usrloc lookup. If failure_route is entered
one could initiate a lookup("alternative_dst") and keep the alternative
destinations in this table, similarly to how aliases are kept in the
"aliases" table. Just keep in mind that one has to manipulate the table
via FIFO -- accessing directly the database back-end does not help.
-Jiri
roughly like that...
t_on_failure("3");
t_relay();
break;
...
failure_route[3] {
if (lookup("alternate_dst")) {
t_relay();
break;
}
t_reply("600", "I really give up trying somewhere else");
}
At 08:21 PM 6/4/2003, Greg Fausak wrote:
Right,
I will write a module, something like:
alias()
Except, perhaps...
forward()
Is that the right approach? The a forward table in
the database that contains (at least) :
User_id forward_id
Where user_id is a number, and if that number is
busy (or unavailable) then forward the request to forward_id.
Now that I think about it, this is exactly like the
alias() call, isn't it?
---greg
> -----Original Message-----
> From: serusers-admin(a)lists.iptel.org
> [mailto:serusers-admin@lists.iptel.org] On Behalf Of Jiri Kuthan
> Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 1:02 PM
> To: Greg Fausak; serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
> Cc: sip(a)august.net
> Subject: RE: [Serusers] Forwarding to another number if busy
>
>
> 'setuser("1002");' works, but it is a burden of static
> configuration -- you
> don't want to do that for every user. A database lookup at
> this place would
> do a much better job. We will look at it, once we complete
> current release
> and move from the frozen status.
>
> -jiri
>
> At 03:20 PM 6/4/2003, Greg Fausak wrote:
> >Jiri,
> >
> >Thank you for the follow up.
> >
> >What I'm thinking about is having say 3 numbers:
> >
> >1001(a)domain.com
> >1002(a)domain.com
> >1003(a)domain.com
> >
> >Only 1001(a)domain.com is a published number.
> >If someone calls 1001(a)domain.com and that number
> > is in use, I want to forward to 1002(a)domain.com, and if
> > that is in use, forward to 1003(a)domain.com. Finally, if the
> > last one is busy, a busy is returned.
> >
> >I understand the voicemail.com domain forwarding below.
> >I guess I'll try the same technique with
'setuser("1002");'.
> >I'll report how it works.
> >
> >---greg
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> t_on_negative along with reply_route, or better named in 8.11
> >> t_on_failure along with failure_route can do that. They simply
> >> capture all cases which resulted in a downstream failure
> >> (negative reply or non-responsive UAS). They don't care if it
> >> is "busy", "DnD" or whatsoever. (8.11 could do more
about that
> >> if needed.)
> >>
> >> e.g.,
> >> ...
> >> t_on_negative(1);
> >> t_relay();
> >> ...
> >> reply_route[1] {
> >> revert_uri();
> >> rewritehostport("voicemail.com");
> >> append_uri();
> >> }
> >>
> >> There is currently no way to personalize forwrding -- in
> the example
> >> above, you simply change hostname in a fixed manner. Personalized
> >> forwarding should not be any difficult development effort,
> if needed.
> >>
> >> Also, there is a first version of voicemail component in 8.11.
> >>
> >> -jiri
> >>
> >> At 07:40 PM 6/2/2003, Greg Fausak wrote:
> >> >I've asked this question before.
> >> >I realize it is a little out of context.
> >> >
> >> >But, if anyone can give me a hint how to forward
> >> > to another number if I try to call a busy number
> >> > I would appreciate it.
> >> >
> >> >Thanks,
> >> >---greg
> >> >Greg Fausak
> >> >August.Net Services, LLC
> >> >
> >> >_______________________________________________
> >> >Serusers mailing list
> >> >serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
> >> >http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
> >>
> >> --
> >> Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/
> >>
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Serusers mailing list
> >serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
> >http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
>
> --
> Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Serusers mailing list
> serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
> http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
>
--
Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/
5 Jun
5 Jun
12:01 a.m.
New subject: [Serusers] Forwarding to another number if busy
I tried a lookup("location") in my reply_route, got this error:
Jun 4 14:53:42 rave ser[27097]: lookup(): Unable to find To HF
I understand about the FIFO.
If I forward number A -> B -> C, do I have to reset
T_on_negative in each reply_route, or does it happen automatically?
That is:
failure_route[3] {
if (lookup("alternate_dst")) {
t_on_negative("3");
t_relay();
break;
}
else
{
t_reply("600", "nowhere to go, maybe voicemail is the last
stop");
}
}
One other question, does t_relay() generate a packet to myself?
---greg
-----Original Message-----
From: serusers-admin(a)lists.iptel.org
[mailto:serusers-admin@lists.iptel.org] On Behalf Of Jiri Kuthan
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 3:45 PM
To: Greg Fausak; serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
Cc: sip(a)august.net
Subject: RE: [Serusers] Forwarding to another number if busy
Indeed -- one could reuse the usrloc lookup. If failure_route
is entered
one could initiate a lookup("alternative_dst") and keep the
alternative
destinations in this table, similarly to how aliases are kept in the
"aliases" table. Just keep in mind that one has to manipulate
the table
via FIFO -- accessing directly the database back-end does not help.
-Jiri
roughly like that...
t_on_failure("3");
t_relay();
break;
...
failure_route[3] {
if (lookup("alternate_dst")) {
t_relay();
break;
}
t_reply("600", "I really give up trying somewhere else");
}
At 08:21 PM 6/4/2003, Greg Fausak wrote:
Right,
I will write a module, something like:
alias()
Except, perhaps...
forward()
Is that the right approach? The a forward table in
the database that contains (at least) :
User_id forward_id
Where user_id is a number, and if that number is
busy (or unavailable) then forward the request to forward_id.
Now that I think about it, this is exactly like the
alias() call, isn't it?
---greg
> -----Original Message-----
> From: serusers-admin(a)lists.iptel.org
> [mailto:serusers-admin@lists.iptel.org] On Behalf Of Jiri Kuthan
> Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 1:02 PM
> To: Greg Fausak; serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
> Cc: sip(a)august.net
> Subject: RE: [Serusers] Forwarding to another number if busy
>
>
> 'setuser("1002");' works, but it is a burden of static
> configuration -- you
> don't want to do that for every user. A database lookup at
> this place would
> do a much better job. We will look at it, once we complete
> current release
> and move from the frozen status.
>
> -jiri
>
> At 03:20 PM 6/4/2003, Greg Fausak wrote:
> >Jiri,
> >
> >Thank you for the follow up.
> >
> >What I'm thinking about is having say 3 numbers:
> >
> >1001(a)domain.com
> >1002(a)domain.com
> >1003(a)domain.com
> >
> >Only 1001(a)domain.com is a published number.
> >If someone calls 1001(a)domain.com and that number
> > is in use, I want to forward to 1002(a)domain.com, and if
> > that is in use, forward to 1003(a)domain.com. Finally, if the
> > last one is busy, a busy is returned.
> >
> >I understand the voicemail.com domain forwarding below.
> >I guess I'll try the same technique with
'setuser("1002");'.
> >I'll report how it works.
> >
> >---greg
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> t_on_negative along with reply_route, or better named in 8.11
> >> t_on_failure along with failure_route can do that. They simply
> >> capture all cases which resulted in a downstream failure
> >> (negative reply or non-responsive UAS). They don't care if it
> >> is "busy", "DnD" or whatsoever. (8.11 could do more
about that
> >> if needed.)
> >>
> >> e.g.,
> >> ...
> >> t_on_negative(1);
> >> t_relay();
> >> ...
> >> reply_route[1] {
> >> revert_uri();
> >> rewritehostport("voicemail.com");
> >> append_uri();
> >> }
> >>
> >> There is currently no way to personalize forwrding -- in
> the example
> >> above, you simply change hostname in a fixed manner.
Personalized
> >> forwarding should not be any
difficult development effort,
> if needed.
> >>
> >> Also, there is a first version of voicemail component in 8.11.
> >>
> >> -jiri
> >>
> >> At 07:40 PM 6/2/2003, Greg Fausak wrote:
> >> >I've asked this question before.
> >> >I realize it is a little out of context.
> >> >
> >> >But, if anyone can give me a hint how to forward
> >> > to another number if I try to call a busy number
> >> > I would appreciate it.
> >> >
> >> >Thanks,
> >> >---greg
> >> >Greg Fausak
> >> >August.Net Services, LLC
> >> >
> >> >_______________________________________________
> >> >Serusers mailing list
> >> >serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
> >> >http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
> >>
> >> --
> >> Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/
> >>
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Serusers mailing list
> >serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
> >http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
>
> --
> Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Serusers mailing list
> serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
> http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
>
--
Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
1:43 a.m.
New subject: [Serusers] Forwarding to another number if busy
At 11:01 PM 6/4/2003, Greg Fausak wrote:
I tried a lookup("location") in my
reply_route, got this error:
Jun 4 14:53:42 rave ser[27097]: lookup(): Unable to find To HF
Can you send me surrounding logs and your config file too --
I have difficultied to find this error message. Does the message
include a To header field? Which SER version are you using?
I understand about the FIFO.
If I forward number A -> B -> C, do I have to reset
T_on_negative in each reply_route, or does it happen automatically?
t_on_failure is a one-time shot and if you wish to try somewhere else
after the first retry, you have to set it to some value again. That's
this way to avoid mistaken endless recursion.
That is:
failure_route[3] {
if (lookup("alternate_dst")) {
t_on_negative("3");
^^^ yes, that's it.
t_relay();
break;
}
else
{
t_reply("600", "nowhere to go, maybe voicemail is the last
stop");
}
}
One other question, does t_relay() generate a packet to myself?
I'm not sure I understand what myself means. t_relay forwards a request to
destination(s) in current uri (set). The destination can have the same URI
as caller, if you mean that.
Regards,
-jiri
6 Jun
6 Jun
4:18 p.m.
New subject: [Serusers] Forwarding to another number if busy
Hello,
On 04-06 16:01, Greg Fausak wrote:
I tried a lookup("location") in my
reply_route, got this error:
Jun 4 14:53:42 rave ser[27097]: lookup(): Unable to find To HF
what version of ser do you use ? One of previous version was looking
for To header field although the header field was not used, but this
was fixed a long time ago.
Jan.
4:48 p.m.
New subject: [Serusers] Forwarding to another number if busy
Hi,
I'm still using 0.8.10 with all of the patches.
I know I should use the newer stuff, but I
experienced many core dumps. I'll give the new
stuff a try again this weekend.
I ran into another problem with my forwarding script.
My code looks like:
If(src_ip == my.pstn.gateway.address)
{
...
}
Else
{
if(!www_authorize())
{
www_challenge();
};
}
This means that calls can come from my gateway without
authentication. Later on in the script:
...
t_on_negative("9");
if(!t_relay())
{
sl_reply_error();
break;
};
}
reply_route[9]
{
log(1,"REPLY_ROUTE:");
revert_uri();
setuser("nextnumber");
t_relay();
}
-----
This logic only works if I get rid of
my authentication/challenge logic. Because the
T_relay() src_ip address is NOT the pstn.gateway
address after the reply_route executes!
So, I tried putting a line in the reply_route that did:
setflag(9);
And changed the beginning of my script:
If(src_ip == my.pstn.gateway.address | isflagset(9))
{
...
}
Else
{
if(!www_authorize())
{
www_challenge();
};
}
This doesn't work. I know the flag was set in the reply_route, but
it is not recognized in the main script.
Do you know what I'm talking about? Any ideas?
---greg
-----Original Message-----
From: Jan Janak [mailto:jan@iptel.org]
Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 8:18 AM
To: Greg Fausak
Cc: 'Jiri Kuthan'; serusers(a)lists.iptel.org; sip(a)august.net
Subject: Re: [Serusers] Forwarding to another number if busy
Hello,
On 04-06 16:01, Greg Fausak wrote:
I tried a lookup("location") in my
reply_route, got this error:
Jun 4 14:53:42 rave ser[27097]: lookup(): Unable to find To HF
what version of ser do you use ? One of previous version was looking
for To header field although the header field was not used, but this
was fixed a long time ago.
Jan.
5:54 p.m.
New subject: [Serusers] Forwarding to another number if busy
At 03:48 PM 6/6/2003, Greg Fausak wrote:
--snip--
My code looks like:
If(src_ip == my.pstn.gateway.address)
{
...
}
Else
{
if(!www_authorize())
{
www_challenge();
};
}
This means that calls can come from my gateway without
authentication. Later on in the script:
...
t_on_negative("9");
if(!t_relay())
{
sl_reply_error();
break;
};
}
reply_route[9]
{
log(1,"REPLY_ROUTE:");
revert_uri();
setuser("nextnumber");
t_relay();
}
-----
This logic only works if I get rid of
my authentication/challenge logic. Because the
T_relay() src_ip address is NOT the pstn.gateway
address after the reply_route executes!
? I'm puzzled -- does the script above somehow relate to the problem
you are describing? You only check src_ip in route{} which is called
only once, so why do you care about what happens after reply_route{}?
So, I tried putting a line in the reply_route that
did:
setflag(9);
And changed the beginning of my script:
If(src_ip == my.pstn.gateway.address | isflagset(9))
{
...
}
Else
{
if(!www_authorize())
{
www_challenge();
};
}
Why do you re-check authentication in reply_route? The authentication
has been already verified on the original request and it buys no
security to do it again with the same request later.
This doesn't work. I know the flag was set in the
reply_route, but
it is not recognized in the main script.
I guess neither src_ip nor flag were copied to reply_route context
in 8.10. That should have changed in 8.11, in case you need it.
a.
6:14 p.m.
New subject: [Serusers] Forwarding to another number if busy
I do not know why reply_route seems to call the
main route block again. I do know that if I comment out
the authentication code in the main route block my forwarding
works. If I do not comment it out, then the forwarding
fails with an 'Unauthorized' directed at the pstn gateway.
Yes, the script is related...I get a call from the PSTN for
the phone number 1234. 1234 doesn't answer, so my on_negative
attempts to forward to 5678. The forward to 5678 fails because
no authentication is present because the source IP address isn't
any longer the pstn gateway AND the main route block code is
being executed again from the on_negative callback. I am not
doing any additional authentication in the callback, I assume
the Unauthorized is coming from the main script.
I asked Jiri earlier if another 'packet' (sip message) was forwarded to
the routing engine...perhaps on locahost. That would explain the
re-execution of the main route block and it would explain the
mechanics of an on_negative callback execution.
I'll take a look at 0.8.11.
Thanks,
---greg
-----Original Message-----
From: Andy Blen [mailto:andy.blen@iptel.org]
Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 9:54 AM
To: Greg Fausak; 'Jan Janak'
Cc: serusers(a)lists.iptel.org; sip(a)august.net
Subject: RE: [Serusers] Forwarding to another number if busy
At 03:48 PM 6/6/2003, Greg Fausak wrote:
--snip--
My code looks like:
If(src_ip == my.pstn.gateway.address)
{
...
}
Else
{
if(!www_authorize())
{
www_challenge();
};
}
This means that calls can come from my gateway without
authentication. Later on in the script:
...
t_on_negative("9");
if(!t_relay())
{
sl_reply_error();
break;
};
}
reply_route[9]
{
log(1,"REPLY_ROUTE:");
revert_uri();
setuser("nextnumber");
t_relay();
}
-----
This logic only works if I get rid of
my authentication/challenge logic. Because the
T_relay() src_ip address is NOT the pstn.gateway
address after the reply_route executes!
? I'm puzzled -- does the script above somehow relate to the problem
you are describing? You only check src_ip in route{} which is called
only once, so why do you care about what happens after reply_route{}?
So, I tried putting a line in the reply_route that
did:
setflag(9);
And changed the beginning of my script:
If(src_ip == my.pstn.gateway.address | isflagset(9))
{
...
}
Else
{
if(!www_authorize())
{
www_challenge();
};
}
Why do you re-check authentication in reply_route? The authentication
has been already verified on the original request and it buys no
security to do it again with the same request later.
This doesn't work. I know the flag was set in
the reply_route, but
it is not recognized in the main script.
I guess neither src_ip nor flag were copied to reply_route context
in 8.10. That should have changed in 8.11, in case you need it.
a.
6:47 p.m.
New subject: [Serusers] Forwarding to another number if busy
At 05:14 PM 6/6/2003, Greg Fausak wrote:
I do not know why reply_route seems to call the
main route block again. I do know that if I comment out
the authentication code in the main route block my forwarding
works. If I do not comment it out, then the forwarding
fails with an 'Unauthorized' directed at the pstn gateway.
Presumably, you rewrite the URI with a URI which results in
a loop over loopback interface. That causes a request to be
forwarded to the server again as a new transaction, which is
subject to authentication checks again. You can verify it by looking
at via_cnt in Warning header field of replies or by watching
local interface. There are different ways of dealing with it
-- not challenging request coming from itself, forwarding to
gateway directly (as opposed through itself), for example.
a.
7:10 p.m.
New subject: [Serusers] Forwarding to another number if busy
At 05:47 PM 6/6/2003, Andy Blen wrote:
At 05:14 PM 6/6/2003, Greg Fausak wrote:
one more possibility is not to consume credentials if next hop
is youself.
a.
I do not know why reply_route seems to call the
main route block again. I do know that if I comment out
the authentication code in the main route block my forwarding
works. If I do not comment it out, then the forwarding
fails with an 'Unauthorized' directed at the pstn gateway.
Presumably, you rewrite the URI with a URI which results in
a loop over loopback interface. That causes a request to be
forwarded to the server again as a new transaction, which is
subject to authentication checks again. You can verify it by looking
at via_cnt in Warning header field of replies or by watching
local interface. There are different ways of dealing with it
-- not challenging request coming from itself, forwarding to
gateway directly (as opposed through itself), for example.
9:51 p.m.
New subject: [Serusers] Forwarding to another number if busy
Andy,
The point is there aren't any credentials.
Anyway, thanks for the ideas.
---greg
-----Original Message-----
From: Andy Blen [mailto:andy.blen@iptel.org]
Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 11:11 AM
To: Andy Blen; Greg Fausak; 'Jan Janak'
Cc: serusers(a)lists.iptel.org; sip(a)august.net
Subject: RE: [Serusers] Forwarding to another number if busy
At 05:47 PM 6/6/2003, Andy Blen wrote:
At 05:14 PM 6/6/2003, Greg Fausak wrote:
one more possibility is not to consume credentials if next hop
is youself.
a.
I do not know why reply_route seems to call the
main route block again. I do know that if I comment out
the authentication code in the main route block my forwarding
works. If I do not comment it out, then the forwarding
fails with an 'Unauthorized' directed at the pstn gateway.
Presumably, you rewrite the URI with a URI which results in
a loop over loopback interface. That causes a request to be
forwarded to the server again as a new transaction, which is
subject to authentication checks again. You can verify it by looking
at via_cnt in Warning header field of replies or by watching
local interface. There are different ways of dealing with it
-- not challenging request coming from itself, forwarding to
gateway directly (as opposed through itself), for example.
7 Jun
7 Jun
12:08 a.m.
New subject: [Serusers] Forwarding to another number if busy
Use then the other methods, for instance look if the request is coming
from SER's address. The condition src_ip==gw cannot hold since you
forward to yourself and the request appears to come from server itself
in the second cycle.
a.
At 08:51 PM 6/6/2003, Greg Fausak wrote:
Andy,
The point is there aren't any credentials.
Anyway, thanks for the ideas.
---greg
--
Andy Blen
iptel.org Services
-----Original Message-----
From: Andy Blen [mailto:andy.blen@iptel.org]
Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 11:11 AM
To: Andy Blen; Greg Fausak; 'Jan Janak'
Cc: serusers(a)lists.iptel.org; sip(a)august.net
Subject: RE: [Serusers] Forwarding to another number if busy
At 05:47 PM 6/6/2003, Andy Blen wrote:
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers At 05:14 PM 6/6/2003, Greg Fausak wrote:
one more possibility is not to consume credentials if next hop
is youself.
a.
I do not know why reply_route seems to call the
main route block again. I do know that if I comment out
the authentication code in the main route block my forwarding
works. If I do not comment it out, then the forwarding
fails with an 'Unauthorized' directed at the pstn gateway.
Presumably, you rewrite the URI with a URI which results in
a loop over loopback interface. That causes a request to be
forwarded to the server again as a new transaction, which is
subject to authentication checks again. You can verify it by looking
at via_cnt in Warning header field of replies or by watching
local interface. There are different ways of dealing with it
-- not challenging request coming from itself, forwarding to
gateway directly (as opposed through itself), for example.
10:50 a.m.
Hello,
On 02-06 08:26, Jamin W. Collins wrote:
Got another oddity at the same site as before. This
morning, th proxy
server appears to have simply stopped processing INVITE requests. It
continued to process and log REGISTER requests. The ngrep process I
have running to log traffic shows the inbound INVITE request, but
nothing after it, no response, no additional INVITE, nothing.
Again, I have ngrep traffic logs for the period if they would help.
Although I have not yet increased the debug level on the process. Was
hoping something would come of the information I forwarded to serhelp
first. However, I'll be increasing the logging level tonight.
No, the information you sent to serhelp was not sufficient, we are
unable to find the problem. Could you, please, increase the debug
level and send us ser logs ? Please follow the instructions provided
by Andrei in one of previous emails.
Jan.
5:39 p.m.
On Sat, Jun 07, 2003 at 09:50:51AM +0200, Jan Janak wrote:
No, the information you sent to serhelp was not
sufficient, we are
unable to find the problem. Could you, please, increase the debug
level and send us ser logs ? Please follow the instructions provided
by Andrei in one of previous emails.
I don't seem to have that information any longer. However, I have
increased the normal logging level to 9 and added the memlog=2 entry as
requested.
By "ser logs" I assume that you are referring to the ser entries in the
syslog or similar?
--
Jamin W. Collins
7:26 p.m.
At 04:39 PM 6/7/2003, Jamin W. Collins wrote:
On Sat, Jun 07, 2003 at 09:50:51AM +0200, Jan Janak
wrote:
yes, that should be fine. then restart and capture logs.
No, the information you sent to serhelp was not
sufficient, we are
unable to find the problem. Could you, please, increase the debug
level and send us ser logs ? Please follow the instructions provided
by Andrei in one of previous emails.
I don't seem to have that information any longer. However, I have
increased the normal logging level to 9 and added the memlog=2 entry as
requested. By "ser logs" I assume that you are referring
to the ser entries in the
syslog or similar?
yes.
thank you,
-jiri
8:03 p.m.
New subject: [Serusers] SER Forward on busy
I got my hardcoded forwarding working, so I thought I'd
createa table and make it real. I created a new table, called
onbusy, that is exactly like 'aliases'. I then modified serctl
to support it, and inserted a forwardint record.
Then, in my code, I added:
#
# forward to location
#
route[2]
{
log(1,"IN ROUTE2");
if(method=="INVITE" | method=="BYE" |
method=="PRACK")
{
log(1,"TRACE: addRecordRoute()");
setflag(1);
setflag(2);
addRecordRoute();
};
t_on_negative("2");
if(!t_relay())
{
sl_reply_error();
break;
};
}
reply_route[2]
{
log(1,"REPLY_ROUTE:");
revert_uri();
#
# check to see if there is a number to forward to
#
if (!lookup("onbusy"))
{
t_reply_unsafe("487", "Busy Here?");
break;
};
append_branch();
t_on_negative("2");
}
However, it doesn't work...I get...
Jun 7 10:22:28 rave ser[752]: ERROR: reply cannot be parsed
Jun 7 10:22:28 rave ser[752]: on_negative_reply: Error in do_action
Any ideas???
---greg
9:04 p.m.
New subject: [Serusers] SER Forward on busy
Greg,
please be kind enough and retry with 8.11 -- developing with 8.10
is for us currently quite counterproductive.
thanks,
-jiri
At 07:03 PM 6/7/2003, Greg Fausak wrote:
I got my hardcoded forwarding working, so I thought
I'd
createa table and make it real. I created a new table, called
onbusy, that is exactly like 'aliases'. I then modified serctl
to support it, and inserted a forwardint record.
Then, in my code, I added:
#
# forward to location
#
route[2]
{
log(1,"IN ROUTE2");
if(method=="INVITE" | method=="BYE" |
method=="PRACK")
{
log(1,"TRACE: addRecordRoute()");
setflag(1);
setflag(2);
addRecordRoute();
};
t_on_negative("2");
if(!t_relay())
{
sl_reply_error();
break;
};
}
reply_route[2]
{
log(1,"REPLY_ROUTE:");
revert_uri();
#
# check to see if there is a number to forward to
#
if (!lookup("onbusy"))
{
t_reply_unsafe("487", "Busy Here?");
break;
};
append_branch();
t_on_negative("2");
}
However, it doesn't work...I get...
Jun 7 10:22:28 rave ser[752]: ERROR: reply cannot be parsed
Jun 7 10:22:28 rave ser[752]: on_negative_reply: Error in do_action
Any ideas???
---greg
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
--
Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/
8 Jun
8 Jun
12:43 a.m.
New subject: [Serusers] SER Forward on busy
OK,
I'll try again.
I couldn't keep it up before :-)
---greg
Greg,
please be kind enough and retry with 8.11 -- developing with 8.10
is for us currently quite counterproductive.
thanks,
-jiri
At 07:03 PM 6/7/2003, Greg Fausak wrote:
I got my hardcoded forwarding working, so I
thought I'd
createa table and make it real. I created a new table, called
onbusy, that is exactly like 'aliases'. I then modified serctl
to support it, and inserted a forwardint record.
Then, in my code, I added:
#
# forward to location
#
route[2]
{
log(1,"IN ROUTE2");
if(method=="INVITE" | method=="BYE" |
method=="PRACK")
{
log(1,"TRACE: addRecordRoute()");
setflag(1);
setflag(2);
addRecordRoute();
};
t_on_negative("2");
if(!t_relay())
{
sl_reply_error();
break;
};
}
reply_route[2]
{
log(1,"REPLY_ROUTE:");
revert_uri();
#
# check to see if there is a number to forward to
#
if (!lookup("onbusy"))
{
t_reply_unsafe("487", "Busy Here?");
break;
};
append_branch();
t_on_negative("2");
}
However, it doesn't work...I get...
Jun 7 10:22:28 rave ser[752]: ERROR: reply cannot be parsed
Jun 7 10:22:28 rave ser[752]: on_negative_reply: Error in do_action
Any ideas???
---greg
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
--
Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
7841
days inactive
7846
days old
23 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Andy Blen -
Greg Fausak -
Jamin W. Collins -
Jan Janak -
Jiri Kuthan