16 Jan
2008
16 Jan
'08
7:28 p.m.
(sorry: just repost to follow correct thread/subjet)
I just found another example from rfc3261 where an endpoint will use 5xx class
answer:
12.2.2 UAS Behavior
Page 76:
If the remote sequence number is empty, it MUST be set to the value
of the sequence number in the CSeq header field value in the request.
If the remote sequence number was not empty, but the sequence number
of the request is lower than the remote sequence number, the request
is out of order and MUST be rejected with a 500 (Server Internal
Error) response.
Hope I convinced you!
tks,
Aymeric MOIZARD / ANTISIP
amsip - http://www.antisip.com
osip2 - http://www.osip.org
eXosip2 - http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/exosip/
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
On Wednesday 16 January 2008 13:44:10 A.smith wrote:
If I try and use the whole example cfg (not just
the route) I am recieving
an error like:
0(23448) find_cmd_export_t: <lookup> not found
0(23448) parse error (105,23-24): unknown command, missing loadmodule?
"lookup()" is defined in "registrar" module that you are not
loading:
http://www.openser.org/docs/modules/1.2.x/registrar.html#AEN342
--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
ibc(a)in.ilimit.es
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
Users(a)lists.openser.org
http://lists.openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
16 Jan
16 Jan
7:35 p.m.
New subject: [OpenSER-Users] best response seems wrong.
On Wednesday 16 January 2008 14:58:22 Aymeric Moizard wrote:
(sorry: just repost to follow correct thread/subjet)
I just found another example from rfc3261 where an endpoint will use 5xx
class answer:
12.2.2 UAS Behavior
Page 76:
If the remote sequence number is empty, it MUST be set to the value
of the sequence number in the CSeq header field value in the request.
If the remote sequence number was not empty, but the sequence number
of the request is lower than the remote sequence number, the request
is out of order and MUST be rejected with a 500 (Server Internal
Error) response.
Hope I convinced you!
Yes ;)
So the question here is why OpenSer is replying 407. But it's so strange...
--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
ibc(a)in.ilimit.es
7:47 p.m.
New subject: [OpenSER-Users] best response seems wrong.
Hi Aymeric,
could you describe the message flow (requests and replies)? I
understand you do parallel forking to 2 clients that return 5xx replies,
but where the 407 comes from??
regards,
bogdan
Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
On Wednesday 16 January 2008 14:58:22 Aymeric Moizard
wrote:
(sorry: just repost to follow correct
thread/subjet)
I just found another example from rfc3261 where an endpoint will use 5xx
class answer:
12.2.2 UAS Behavior
Page 76:
If the remote sequence number is empty, it MUST be set to the value
of the sequence number in the CSeq header field value in the request.
If the remote sequence number was not empty, but the sequence number
of the request is lower than the remote sequence number, the request
is out of order and MUST be rejected with a 500 (Server Internal
Error) response.
Hope I convinced you!
Yes ;)
So the question here is why OpenSer is replying 407. But it's so strange...
8 p.m.
New subject: [OpenSER-Users] best response seems wrong.
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote:
Hi Aymeric,
could you describe the message flow (requests and replies)? I understand
you do parallel forking to 2 clients that return 5xx replies, but where
the 407 comes from??
I was about to send the capture:
http://antisip.antisip.com/publish-issue.pcap
Put the filter "sip contains 77622" to view the incoming
transaction + the 2 outgoing transactions. 2 501 are received
and one 407 is sent back. There is no incoming 407 that comes
to openser.
I have to admit that the call flow is strange, because my openser forwards
the PUBLISH sent by a user to himself. (I don't have presence server) The
second strange thing is that the same softphone is registred twice on the
same IP... However, this demonstrates the issue.
In case, there is only ONE binding for the user, the 501 is forwarded
correctly...
To reproduce the error:
My softphone:
http://sip.antisip.com/download/emansip-setup/emansip-setup-v411-rc10.exe
Create an account first on:
http://sip.antisip.com/
I'm currently modifying my softphone to send 405, hoping that will fix
the issue... However, it would still be nice to solve it.
tks for your effort,
Aymeric
regards,
bogdan
Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
On Wednesday 16 January 2008 14:58:22 Aymeric
Moizard wrote:
(sorry: just repost to follow correct
thread/subjet)
I just found another example from rfc3261 where an endpoint will use 5xx
class answer:
12.2.2 UAS Behavior
Page 76:
If the remote sequence number is empty, it MUST be set to the value
of the sequence number in the CSeq header field value in the request.
If the remote sequence number was not empty, but the sequence number
of the request is lower than the remote sequence number, the request
is out of order and MUST be rejected with a 500 (Server Internal
Error) response.
Hope I convinced you!
Yes ;)
So the question here is why OpenSer is replying 407. But it's so strange...
8:55 p.m.
New subject: [OpenSER-Users] best response seems wrong.
I guess somehow the message gets looped to the proxy again:
Take a look at the topmost Via header of the relayed PUBLISH. At the end
you see .1 and .2. This measn the .1 branch and the .2 branch. Where is
the .0 branch?
I guess it is lopped back to openser (via loopback interface) and is
rejected with 407.
Try "ngrep -d any" or "tcpdump -i any" to see loopback too!
regards
klaus
Aymeric Moizard schrieb:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote:
Hi Aymeric,
could you describe the message flow (requests and replies)? I
understand you do parallel forking to 2 clients that return 5xx
replies, but where the 407 comes from??
I was about to send the capture:
http://antisip.antisip.com/publish-issue.pcap
Put the filter "sip contains 77622" to view the incoming
transaction + the 2 outgoing transactions. 2 501 are received
and one 407 is sent back. There is no incoming 407 that comes
to openser.
I have to admit that the call flow is strange, because my openser
forwards the PUBLISH sent by a user to himself. (I don't have presence
server) The second strange thing is that the same softphone is registred
twice on the same IP... However, this demonstrates the issue.
In case, there is only ONE binding for the user, the 501 is forwarded
correctly...
To reproduce the error:
My softphone:
http://sip.antisip.com/download/emansip-setup/emansip-setup-v411-rc10.exe
Create an account first on:
http://sip.antisip.com/
I'm currently modifying my softphone to send 405, hoping that will fix
the issue... However, it would still be nice to solve it.
tks for your effort,
Aymeric
> regards,
> bogdan
>
> Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
>> On Wednesday 16 January 2008 14:58:22 Aymeric Moizard wrote:
>>
>>> (sorry: just repost to follow correct thread/subjet)
>>>
>>> I just found another example from rfc3261 where an endpoint will
>>> use 5xx
>>> class answer:
>>>
>>> 12.2.2 UAS Behavior
>>>
>>> Page 76:
>>>
>>> If the remote sequence number is empty, it MUST be set to the value
>>> of the sequence number in the CSeq header field value in the
>>> request.
>>> If the remote sequence number was not empty, but the sequence
>>> number
>>> of the request is lower than the remote sequence number, the
>>> request
>>> is out of order and MUST be rejected with a 500 (Server Internal
>>> Error) response.
>>>
>>> Hope I convinced you!
>>>
>>
>> Yes ;)
>>
>>
>> So the question here is why OpenSer is replying 407. But it's so
>> strange...
>>
>>
>
>
8:57 p.m.
New subject: [OpenSER-Users] best response seems wrong.
I agree - the branch 0 is missing (only 1 and 2 show up in the trace),
so it must be on the lo.....
regards,
bogdan
Klaus Darilion wrote:
I guess somehow the message gets looped to the proxy
again:
Take a look at the topmost Via header of the relayed PUBLISH. At the
end you see .1 and .2. This measn the .1 branch and the .2 branch.
Where is the .0 branch?
I guess it is lopped back to openser (via loopback interface) and is
rejected with 407.
Try "ngrep -d any" or "tcpdump -i any" to see loopback too!
regards
klaus
Aymeric Moizard schrieb:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote:
Hi Aymeric,
could you describe the message flow (requests and replies)? I
understand you do parallel forking to 2 clients that return 5xx
replies, but where the 407 comes from??
I was about to send the capture:
http://antisip.antisip.com/publish-issue.pcap
Put the filter "sip contains 77622" to view the incoming
transaction + the 2 outgoing transactions. 2 501 are received
and one 407 is sent back. There is no incoming 407 that comes
to openser.
I have to admit that the call flow is strange, because my openser
forwards the PUBLISH sent by a user to himself. (I don't have
presence server) The second strange thing is that the same softphone
is registred twice on the same IP... However, this demonstrates the
issue.
In case, there is only ONE binding for the user, the 501 is forwarded
correctly...
To reproduce the error:
My softphone:
http://sip.antisip.com/download/emansip-setup/emansip-setup-v411-rc10.exe
Create an account first on:
http://sip.antisip.com/
I'm currently modifying my softphone to send 405, hoping that will fix
the issue... However, it would still be nice to solve it.
tks for your effort,
Aymeric
> regards,
> bogdan
>
> Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
>> On Wednesday 16 January 2008 14:58:22 Aymeric Moizard wrote:
>>
>>> (sorry: just repost to follow correct thread/subjet)
>>>
>>> I just found another example from rfc3261 where an endpoint will
>>> use 5xx
>>> class answer:
>>>
>>> 12.2.2 UAS Behavior
>>>
>>> Page 76:
>>>
>>> If the remote sequence number is empty, it MUST be set to the
>>> value
>>> of the sequence number in the CSeq header field value in the
>>> request.
>>> If the remote sequence number was not empty, but the sequence
>>> number
>>> of the request is lower than the remote sequence number, the
>>> request
>>> is out of order and MUST be rejected with a 500 (Server Internal
>>> Error) response.
>>>
>>> Hope I convinced you!
>>>
>>
>> Yes ;)
>>
>>
>> So the question here is why OpenSer is replying 407. But it's so
>> strange...
>>
>>
>
>
9:11 p.m.
New subject: [OpenSER-Users] best response seems wrong.
On Wednesday 16 January 2008 16:27:57 Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote:
I agree - the branch 0 is missing (only 1 and 2 show
up in the trace),
so it must be on the lo.....
Maybe he could do a "ngrep" capture with "-i any" option.
--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
ibc(a)in.ilimit.es
17 Jan
17 Jan
12:43 a.m.
New subject: [OpenSER-Users] best response seems wrong.
Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
On Wednesday 16 January 2008 16:27:57 Bogdan-Andrei
Iancu wrote:
ngrep: -d
tcpdump: -i
regards
klaus
I agree - the branch 0 is missing (only 1 and 2
show up in the trace),
so it must be on the lo.....
Maybe he could do a "ngrep" capture with "-i any" option.
2:27 p.m.
New subject: [OpenSER-Users] best response seems wrong.
On Wednesday 16 January 2008 20:13:03 Klaus Darilion wrote:
Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
Yes thanks ;)
--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
ibc(a)in.ilimit.es
On Wednesday 16 January 2008 16:27:57
Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote:
ngrep: -d
tcpdump: -i I agree - the branch 0 is missing (only 1 and 2
show up in the trace),
so it must be on the lo.....
Maybe he could do a "ngrep" capture with "-i any" option.
16 Jan
16 Jan
10:23 p.m.
New subject: [OpenSER-Users] best response seems wrong.
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008, Klaus Darilion wrote:
I guess somehow the message gets looped to the proxy
again:
Take a look at the topmost Via header of the relayed PUBLISH. At the end you
see .1 and .2. This measn the .1 branch and the .2 branch. Where is the .0
branch?
I guess it is lopped back to openser (via loopback interface) and is rejected
with 407.
Try "ngrep -d any" or "tcpdump -i any" to see loopback too!
Right!
There was a 3rd binding "sip:xxx@sip.antisip.com" targetted to
an undefined user...
Any hint how to workaround this case? I suppose I might be able to
detect this situation inside my "branch" routing script?
tks,
Aymeric MOIZARD / ANTISIP
amsip - http://www.antisip.com
osip2 - http://www.osip.org
eXosip2 - http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/exosip/
regards
klaus
Aymeric Moizard schrieb:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote:
Hi Aymeric,
could you describe the message flow (requests and replies)? I understand
you do parallel forking to 2 clients that return 5xx replies, but where
the 407 comes from??
I was about to send the capture:
http://antisip.antisip.com/publish-issue.pcap
Put the filter "sip contains 77622" to view the incoming
transaction + the 2 outgoing transactions. 2 501 are received
and one 407 is sent back. There is no incoming 407 that comes
to openser.
I have to admit that the call flow is strange, because my openser forwards
the PUBLISH sent by a user to himself. (I don't have presence server) The
second strange thing is that the same softphone is registred twice on the
same IP... However, this demonstrates the issue.
In case, there is only ONE binding for the user, the 501 is forwarded
correctly...
To reproduce the error:
My softphone:
http://sip.antisip.com/download/emansip-setup/emansip-setup-v411-rc10.exe
Create an account first on:
http://sip.antisip.com/
I'm currently modifying my softphone to send 405, hoping that will fix
the issue... However, it would still be nice to solve it.
tks for your effort,
Aymeric
> regards,
> bogdan
>
> Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
>> On Wednesday 16 January 2008 14:58:22 Aymeric Moizard wrote:
>>
>>> (sorry: just repost to follow correct thread/subjet)
>>>
>>> I just found another example from rfc3261 where an endpoint will use
>>> 5xx
>>> class answer:
>>>
>>> 12.2.2 UAS Behavior
>>>
>>> Page 76:
>>>
>>> If the remote sequence number is empty, it MUST be set to the value
>>> of the sequence number in the CSeq header field value in the
>>> request.
>>> If the remote sequence number was not empty, but the sequence number
>>> of the request is lower than the remote sequence number, the request
>>> is out of order and MUST be rejected with a 500 (Server Internal
>>> Error) response.
>>>
>>> Hope I convinced you!
>>>
>>
>> Yes ;)
>>
>>
>> So the question here is why OpenSer is replying 407. But it's so
>> strange...
>>
>>
>
>
10:28 p.m.
New subject: [OpenSER-Users] best response seems wrong.
Yes, you can use branch_route to individually inspect each branch. Also
you can drop them via "drop" statement.
Regards,
Bogdan
Aymeric Moizard wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008, Klaus Darilion wrote:
I guess somehow the message gets looped to the
proxy again:
Take a look at the topmost Via header of the relayed PUBLISH. At the
end you see .1 and .2. This measn the .1 branch and the .2 branch.
Where is the .0 branch?
I guess it is lopped back to openser (via loopback interface) and is
rejected with 407.
Try "ngrep -d any" or "tcpdump -i any" to see loopback too!
Right!
There was a 3rd binding "sip:xxx@sip.antisip.com" targetted to
an undefined user...
Any hint how to workaround this case? I suppose I might be able to
detect this situation inside my "branch" routing script?
tks,
Aymeric MOIZARD / ANTISIP
amsip - http://www.antisip.com
osip2 - http://www.osip.org
eXosip2 - http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/exosip/
17 Jan
17 Jan
12:42 a.m.
New subject: [OpenSER-Users] best response seems wrong.
Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote:
Yes, you can use branch_route to individually inspect
each branch. Also
you can drop them via "drop" statement.
Or in first place avoid the bad location entry in subscriber table -
e.g. screen the contact URI before save().
regards
klaus
8:26 a.m.
New subject: [OpenSER-Users] best response seems wrong.
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008, Klaus Darilion wrote:
Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote:
Would be nice to provide some more clue on this.
tks,
Aymeric MOIZARD / ANTISIP
amsip - http://www.antisip.com
osip2 - http://www.osip.org
eXosip2 - http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/exosip/
Yes, you can use branch_route to individually
inspect each branch. Also you
can drop them via "drop" statement.
Or in first place avoid the bad location entry in subscriber table - e.g.
screen the contact URI before save(). regards
klaus
1:44 p.m.
New subject: [OpenSER-Users] best response seems wrong.
Aymeric Moizard schrieb:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008, Klaus Darilion wrote:
Hi Aymeric!
SIP is by design buggy: The SIP protocol tells us to save the contact
during REGISTER and to use this contact for incoming calls to the
respective user. But the contact is user provided - and user provided
data should never be trusted without validation (like everybody does
with HTTP forms).
A simple example:
REGISTER sip.antisip.com
To: sip:klaus3000@sip.antisip.com
Contact: sip:0043123456@ipaddress.ofthe.pstngatewayof.antisip
Now, incoming calls to klaus3000 will be forwarded to the pstngateway
which usually trusts the proxy and establishes the call.
Thus, the proxy should screen the contact. This can be done 2 times:
Either during registration (before save()) or while call-routing (after
lookup().
IMO it is best to both methods. Checking for illegal destinations (like
direct addressing of the PSTN gateway or other internal SIP components)
can be done using openser's blacklist feature. Define blacklists which
will be activated except the proxy really wants to route the call to the
PSTN gateway.
Further, I also screen the contact during registration (actually with
openser's blacklist feature this is not really needed anymore - but
often you have system with older openser versions and you might not
update) using the permissions module and forbid IP addresses of internal
components, the proxy itself and optional also domains.
Recently there was a similar thread which is IMO worth reading:
http://www.openser.org/pipermail/users/2007-December/014853.html and
long explanation from me:
http://www.openser.org/pipermail/users/2007-December/014867.html
regards
Klaus
Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote:
Would be nice to provide some more clue on this. Yes, you can use branch_route to individually
inspect each branch.
Also you can drop them via "drop" statement.
Or in first place avoid the bad location entry in subscriber table -
e.g. screen the contact URI before save().
2:40 p.m.
New subject: [OpenSER-Users] best response seems wrong.
On Thursday 17 January 2008 09:14:35 Klaus Darilion wrote:
SIP is by design buggy: The SIP protocol tells us to
save the contact
during REGISTER and to use this contact for incoming calls to the
respective user. But the contact is user provided
I understant what you mean, but sincerely, I can't imagine how a registrar
could validate user provided "Contact". Yes, it can forbid some IP's or
domains (see comment below anyway) but how a registrar can know that
the "Contact" header belongs or not to the device sending the REGISTER?
Another design option wolud be use internal and trusted data for the "Contact"
isntead of user provided, but how does it make sense?
The only solution I see could be forzing a convention for the "Contact" URI:
AoR = user(a)domain.com --> Contact = user_domain.com@any_IP
So if the registrar receives a REGISTER for AoR "user(a)domain.com" containing
a "Contact" different that "user_domain.com@any_IP" it should reject
it.
A convention with just username part:
AoR = user(a)domain.com --> Contact = user@any_IP
wouldn't be so strong since it doesn't avoid flood in case of multidomain.
But of course, forcing this convention should be done at RFC3261 (IMHO).
Further, I also screen the contact during registration
(actually with
openser's blacklist feature this is not really needed anymore - but
often you have system with older openser versions and you might not
update) using the permissions module and forbid IP addresses of internal
components, the proxy itself and optional also domains.
In this point, remember that forbiding some IP addresses in "register.deny" is
not useful at all since a malicious user can set a public domain pointing to
that internal IP and set a "Contact:
<sip:pstn_number@domain_hacker.com>".
As you said, a solution is forbidding domain names in "Contact" (but not very
RFC3261 compliant).
The best is reading the thread you pointed i nwhich you and others gave very
good solutions and explanations for this serious problem.
Regards.
--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
ibc(a)in.ilimit.es
2:57 p.m.
New subject: [OpenSER-Users] best response seems wrong.
On Thursday 17 January 2008 10:10:46 Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
wouldn't be so strong since it doesn't avoid
flood in case of multidomain.
"flood???"
Sorry, my dog was typing for me and he must learn a lot still. I
meant "flood".
--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
ibc(a)in.ilimit.es
4:52 p.m.
New subject: [OpenSER-Users] best response seems wrong.
Iñaki Baz Castillo schrieb:
On Thursday 17 January 2008 09:14:35 Klaus Darilion
wrote:
Yes. You can not validate every IP address - but you can deny known fake
IP addresses (the IP addresses of internal components).
Further, you could use fix_nated_register for each clients (which of
course breaks communication with asymmetric clients (Cisco phones+pix)
but this is spoofable (unless src_IP will be used for nonce calculation.)
klaus
SIP is by design buggy: The SIP protocol tells us
to save the contact
during REGISTER and to use this contact for incoming calls to the
respective user. But the contact is user provided
I understant what you mean, but sincerely, I can't imagine how a registrar
could validate user provided "Contact". Yes, it can forbid some IP's or
domains (see comment below anyway) but how a registrar can know that
the "Contact" header belongs or not to the device sending the REGISTER?
Another design option wolud be use internal and trusted data for the "Contact"
isntead of user provided, but how does it make sense?
The only solution I see could be forzing a convention for the "Contact" URI:
AoR = user(a)domain.com --> Contact = user_domain.com@any_IP
So if the registrar receives a REGISTER for AoR "user(a)domain.com" containing
a "Contact" different that "user_domain.com@any_IP" it should reject
it.
A convention with just username part:
AoR = user(a)domain.com --> Contact = user@any_IP
wouldn't be so strong since it doesn't avoid flood in case of multidomain.
But of course, forcing this convention should be done at RFC3261 (IMHO).
Further, I also screen the contact during
registration (actually with
openser's blacklist feature this is not really needed anymore - but
often you have system with older openser versions and you might not
update) using the permissions module and forbid IP addresses of internal
components, the proxy itself and optional also domains.
In this point, remember that forbiding some IP addresses in "register.deny" is
not useful at all since a malicious user can set a public domain pointing to
that internal IP and set a "Contact:
<sip:pstn_number@domain_hacker.com>".
As you said, a solution is forbidding domain names in "Contact" (but not very
RFC3261 compliant).
The best is reading the thread you pointed i nwhich you and others gave very
good solutions and explanations for this serious problem.
Regards.
8:05 p.m.
New subject: [OpenSER-Users] best response seems wrong.
I'm trying the permissions module as you advised but can't make it work.
At first, I only installed register.allow and register.deny and have
only used allow_register().
It was not working and magically work after installing
empty "permissions.allow" and "permissions.deny" files...
May be you might fix this! Anyway, it's working now.
tks,
Aymeric MOIZARD / ANTISIP
amsip - http://www.antisip.com
osip2 - http://www.osip.org
eXosip2 - http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/exosip/
16 Jan
16 Jan
7:50 p.m.
New subject: [OpenSER-Users] best response seems wrong.
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
On Wednesday 16 January 2008 14:58:22 Aymeric Moizard
wrote:
Very good point!
(sorry: just repost to follow correct
thread/subjet)
I just found another example from rfc3261 where an endpoint will use 5xx
class answer:
12.2.2 UAS Behavior
Page 76:
If the remote sequence number is empty, it MUST be set to the value
of the sequence number in the CSeq header field value in the request.
If the remote sequence number was not empty, but the sequence number
of the request is lower than the remote sequence number, the request
is out of order and MUST be rejected with a 500 (Server Internal
Error) response.
Hope I convinced you!
Yes ;) So the question here is why OpenSer is replying 407.
But it's so strange...
I agree.
I rechecked my configuration but my configuration definitly not
modify a possible forked answer into a "challenge" operation.
I've grepped in the code for "407", "proxy_challenge", challenge
calls,
but none seems to be possibly called in my case. Although I don't know
much about openser internal code and I'm still not able to find where
the "best response selection" is made.
Although, openser don't use one of the "to" tag from the 501 into the
407... It's not required, but might help to find out where in the code
the issue might happen.
tks,
Aymeric MOIZARD / ANTISIP
amsip - http://www.antisip.com
osip2 - http://www.osip.org
eXosip2 - http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/exosip/
--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
ibc(a)in.ilimit.es
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
Users(a)lists.openser.org
http://lists.openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
7:56 p.m.
New subject: [OpenSER-Users] best response seems wrong.
I've grepped in the code for "407",
"proxy_challenge",
challenge calls,
but none seems to be possibly called in my case. Although I don't know
much about openser internal code and I'm still not able to find where
the "best response selection" is made.
I would seriously recommend logging all decisions you take in the config
file using x_log(), so you can follow a transaction in the logfile.
By default the logfile is filled with mostly what OpenSER is doing, while
the "why" is much, much more interesting.
--
Andreas Sikkema
8:06 p.m.
New subject: [OpenSER-Users] best response seems wrong.
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008, Andreas Sikkema wrote:
In my openser configuration, I have a xlog() call before EVERY
sl_send_reply. The last executed script to handle the PUBLISH
is:
if (!t_relay()) {
sl_reply_error();
};
I got "t_on_branch("2");" which does contains only code to
handle media relay and exit.
So, I'm looking for the why ;)
Any advise?
tks,
Aymeric MOIZARD / ANTISIP
amsip - http://www.antisip.com
osip2 - http://www.osip.org
eXosip2 - http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/exosip/
I've grepped in the code for "407",
"proxy_challenge",
challenge calls,
but none seems to be possibly called in my case. Although I don't know
much about openser internal code and I'm still not able to find where
the "best response selection" is made.
I would seriously recommend logging all decisions you take in the config
file using x_log(), so you can follow a transaction in the logfile.
By default the logfile is filled with mostly what OpenSER is doing, while
the "why" is much, much more interesting. --
Andreas Sikkema
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
Users(a)lists.openser.org
http://lists.openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
6216
days inactive
6217
days old
20 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Andreas Sikkema -
Aymeric Moizard -
Bogdan-Andrei Iancu -
Iñaki Baz Castillo -
Klaus Darilion