Simon Miles wrote:
Klaus,
Thanks for the feedback, but I still think it is a problem.
If I use the prefix command, this effects the URI field but not the To field. According to RFC2543 the To field is the one to use for dialling when the INVITE gets to it's final destination.
Are you sure that the To: field is used fpr dialing - not the request URI? Can you point me to the relevant sections in RFC2543?
regards, klaus
PS: Please CC to the list.
Hence the prefix command can't be used ! ! ! If I mangle the To field then this effects the Call-ID so the SIP software sees a reply to the INVITE as another message ! !
Simon
-----Original Message----- From: Klaus Darilion [mailto:klaus.mailinglists@pernau.at] Sent: 10 January 2005 22:27 To: Simon Miles Cc: serusers@lists.iptel.org Subject: Re: [Serusers] Support for Gateway still on RFC2543
There should be no problem at all - RFC 3261 is compatible with the old RFC. ser will look for the "lr" parameter in the via headers and will use strict routing if the lr parameter is not found in the topmost via header.
regards, klaus
Simon Miles wrote:
Dear Community,
I still have gateways that confirm to RFC2543 and not the newer RFC3261. This means the use of URI and To fields are different. Is there any way of telling sip_router that it needs to conform to the old spec ?
Thanks
Simon
--
Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
RFC2543 states in the opening paragraph of section 2 :-
"SIP URLs are used within SIP messages to indicate the originator (From), current destination (Request-URI) and final recipient (To) of a SIP request...."
I am using a MultiTech 3010 and it certainly dials what is in the To field. I assume that are using the 'final recipient' field and not the URI. This does mean that any mangling of the URI is lost. If I mangle the To field then the unique reference created from the To field together with From and Call-ID fields is lost and the server does not recognise any response form the gateway.
Is this gateway unique in it's interpretation of the RFC2543 ?
Simon
-----Original Message----- From: serusers-bounces@iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org] On Behalf Of Klaus Darilion Sent: 11 January 2005 23:18 To: Simon Miles Cc: Serusers Subject: Re: [Serusers] Support for Gateway still on RFC2543
Simon Miles wrote:
Klaus,
Thanks for the feedback, but I still think it is a problem.
If I use the prefix command, this effects the URI field but not the To
field. According to RFC2543 the To field is the one to use for dialling when the INVITE gets to it's final destination.
Are you sure that the To: field is used fpr dialing - not the request URI? Can you point me to the relevant sections in RFC2543?
regards, klaus
PS: Please CC to the list.
Hence the prefix command can't be used ! ! ! If I mangle the To field then this effects the Call-ID so the SIP software sees a reply to the INVITE as another message ! !
Simon
-----Original Message----- From: Klaus Darilion [mailto:klaus.mailinglists@pernau.at] Sent: 10 January 2005 22:27 To: Simon Miles Cc: serusers@lists.iptel.org Subject: Re: [Serusers] Support for Gateway still on RFC2543
There should be no problem at all - RFC 3261 is compatible with the old RFC. ser will look for the "lr" parameter in the via headers and will use strict routing if the lr parameter is not found in the topmost via
header.
regards, klaus
Simon Miles wrote:
Dear Community,
I still have gateways that confirm to RFC2543 and not the newer RFC3261. This means the use of URI and To fields are different. Is there any way of telling sip_router that it needs to conform to the old spec ?
Thanks
Simon
--
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
All devices I've seen yet use the request URI or they are configureable. Maybe you can configure your GW to tuse the request URI.
regards, klaus
Simon Miles wrote:
RFC2543 states in the opening paragraph of section 2 :-
"SIP URLs are used within SIP messages to indicate the originator (From), current destination (Request-URI) and final recipient (To) of a SIP request...."
I am using a MultiTech 3010 and it certainly dials what is in the To field. I assume that are using the 'final recipient' field and not the URI. This does mean that any mangling of the URI is lost. If I mangle the To field then the unique reference created from the To field together with From and Call-ID fields is lost and the server does not recognise any response form the gateway.
Is this gateway unique in it's interpretation of the RFC2543 ?
Simon
-----Original Message----- From: serusers-bounces@iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org] On Behalf Of Klaus Darilion Sent: 11 January 2005 23:18 To: Simon Miles Cc: Serusers Subject: Re: [Serusers] Support for Gateway still on RFC2543
Simon Miles wrote:
Klaus,
Thanks for the feedback, but I still think it is a problem.
If I use the prefix command, this effects the URI field but not the To
field. According to RFC2543 the To field is the one to use for dialling when the INVITE gets to it's final destination.
Are you sure that the To: field is used fpr dialing - not the request URI? Can you point me to the relevant sections in RFC2543?
regards, klaus
PS: Please CC to the list.
Hence the prefix command can't be used ! ! ! If I mangle the To field then this effects the Call-ID so the SIP software sees a reply to the INVITE as another message ! !
Simon
-----Original Message----- From: Klaus Darilion [mailto:klaus.mailinglists@pernau.at] Sent: 10 January 2005 22:27 To: Simon Miles Cc: serusers@lists.iptel.org Subject: Re: [Serusers] Support for Gateway still on RFC2543
There should be no problem at all - RFC 3261 is compatible with the old RFC. ser will look for the "lr" parameter in the via headers and will use strict routing if the lr parameter is not found in the topmost via
header.
regards, klaus
Simon Miles wrote:
Dear Community,
I still have gateways that confirm to RFC2543 and not the newer RFC3261. This means the use of URI and To fields are different. Is there any way of telling sip_router that it needs to conform to the old spec ?
Thanks
Simon
--
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
The MultiTech 3010 we are using has the latest firmware 4.07. It is not configurable - not according to the tech support guys anyway. Admittedly they are looking into the problem but for the time being I have a broken configuration that can't prefix numbers.
It sounds like the gateway is not conforming to the norm and should be working from the URI. At least you have confirmed my concerns.
I know there is a firmware upgrade in the pipeline - so maybe that will fix it.
Simon
-----Original Message----- From: serusers-bounces@iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org] On Behalf Of Klaus Darilion Sent: 12 January 2005 00:14 To: Simon Miles Cc: 'Serusers' Subject: Re: [Serusers] Support for Gateway still on RFC2543
All devices I've seen yet use the request URI or they are configureable.
Maybe you can configure your GW to tuse the request URI.
regards, klaus
Simon Miles wrote:
RFC2543 states in the opening paragraph of section 2 :-
"SIP URLs are used within SIP messages to indicate the originator (From), current destination (Request-URI) and final recipient (To)
of
a SIP request...."
I am using a MultiTech 3010 and it certainly dials what is in the To field. I assume that are using the 'final recipient' field and not the
URI. This does mean that any mangling of the URI is lost. If I mangle the To field then the unique reference created from the To field together with From and Call-ID fields is lost and the server does not recognise any response form the gateway.
Is this gateway unique in it's interpretation of the RFC2543 ?
Simon
-----Original Message----- From: serusers-bounces@iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org] On Behalf Of Klaus Darilion Sent: 11 January 2005 23:18 To: Simon Miles Cc: Serusers Subject: Re: [Serusers] Support for Gateway still on RFC2543
Simon Miles wrote:
Klaus,
Thanks for the feedback, but I still think it is a problem.
If I use the prefix command, this effects the URI field but not the To
field. According to RFC2543 the To field is the one to use for dialling when the INVITE gets to it's final destination.
Are you sure that the To: field is used fpr dialing - not the request URI? Can you point me to the relevant sections in RFC2543?
regards, klaus
PS: Please CC to the list.
Hence the prefix command can't be used ! ! ! If I mangle the To field then this effects the Call-ID so the SIP software sees a reply to the INVITE as another message ! !
Simon
-----Original Message----- From: Klaus Darilion [mailto:klaus.mailinglists@pernau.at] Sent: 10 January 2005 22:27 To: Simon Miles Cc: serusers@lists.iptel.org Subject: Re: [Serusers] Support for Gateway still on RFC2543
There should be no problem at all - RFC 3261 is compatible with the old RFC. ser will look for the "lr" parameter in the via headers and will use strict routing if the lr parameter is not found in the topmost via
header.
regards, klaus
Simon Miles wrote:
Dear Community,
I still have gateways that confirm to RFC2543 and not the newer RFC3261. This means the use of URI and To fields are different. Is there any way of telling sip_router that it needs to conform to the old spec ?
Thanks
Simon
--
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
_______________________________________________ Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
Hello to all
I already have SER going to the DB to check if the endpoints are registered, but when I enabled the DB accountig I couldnt do calls between the endpoints.
Can someone check my routing policy and tell me why does SER always returns "Not Found"?
Thanks Joao
theres my ser.conf:
debug=5 #fork=no log_stderror=yes
check_via=no # (cmd. line: -v) dns=no # (cmd. line: -r) rev_dns=no # (cmd. line: -R) fifo="/tmp/ser_fifo"
# ------------------ module loading ---------------------------------- loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/postgres.so" loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/sl.so" loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/tm.so" loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/rr.so" loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/maxfwd.so" loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/usrloc.so" loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/registrar.so"
loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/auth.so" loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/auth_db.so"
# ----------------- setting module-specific parameters --------------- modparam("usrloc", "db_mode", 1) modparam("usrloc", "user_column", "username") modparam("usrloc", "contact_column", "contacto") modparam("usrloc", "expires_column", "expires") modparam("usrloc", "db_url", "DB_STUFF") modparam("usrloc", "timer_interval", 120)
modparam("auth_db", "calculate_ha1", yes)
modparam("auth_db", "user_column", "username") modparam("auth_db", "domain_column", "dominio")
modparam("auth_db", "calculate_ha1", 1) modparam("auth_db", "password_column", "password") modparam("auth_db", "use_rpid", 0)
modparam("auth_db","db_url","DB_STUFF")
modparam("rr", "enable_full_lr", 1)
# ------------------------- request routing logic ------------------- route{
if (!mf_process_maxfwd_header("10")) { sl_send_reply("483","Too Many Hops"); break; }; if ( msg:len > max_len ) { sl_send_reply("513", "Message too big"); break; };
if (loose_route()) { t_relay(); break; };
if (uri==myself) { if (method=="REGISTER") { if (!www_authorize("DB_IP", "utilizador")) { www_challenge("DB_IP", "0"); break; }; save("registo_sip"); break; };
if (!lookup("utilizador")) { sl_send_reply("404", "Not Found"); break; };
};
if (!t_relay()) { sl_reply_error();
};
}
The gateway should not use To, it should use the Request-URI as the final destination. The reason is that the value put into the To header field is generated by the calling user agent and it is not guaranteed that the final recipient (gateway in this case) would know how to interpret it.
This is different with the Request-URI since this is generated by the previous hop (usually the proxy in front of the gateway) and it can make sure that the Request-URI is in the format the gateway would recognize.
For example, if I create alias foo@iptel.org that would be mapped to +123456@iptel.org and call sip:foo@iptel.org, my user agent would put foo@iptel.org in To, but the proxy server would rewrite sip:foo@iptel.org in the Request-URI into sip:+123456@iptel.org. The gateway would not know how to handle sip:foo@iptel.org, but would know how to handle sip:+123456@iptel.org
Jan.
On 11-01 23:26, Simon Miles wrote:
RFC2543 states in the opening paragraph of section 2 :-
"SIP URLs are used within SIP messages to indicate the originator (From), current destination (Request-URI) and final recipient (To) of a SIP request...."
I am using a MultiTech 3010 and it certainly dials what is in the To field. I assume that are using the 'final recipient' field and not the URI. This does mean that any mangling of the URI is lost. If I mangle the To field then the unique reference created from the To field together with From and Call-ID fields is lost and the server does not recognise any response form the gateway.
Is this gateway unique in it's interpretation of the RFC2543 ?
Simon
-----Original Message----- From: serusers-bounces@iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org] On Behalf Of Klaus Darilion Sent: 11 January 2005 23:18 To: Simon Miles Cc: Serusers Subject: Re: [Serusers] Support for Gateway still on RFC2543
Simon Miles wrote:
Klaus,
Thanks for the feedback, but I still think it is a problem.
If I use the prefix command, this effects the URI field but not the To
field. According to RFC2543 the To field is the one to use for dialling when the INVITE gets to it's final destination.
Are you sure that the To: field is used fpr dialing - not the request URI? Can you point me to the relevant sections in RFC2543?
regards, klaus
PS: Please CC to the list.
Hence the prefix command can't be used ! ! ! If I mangle the To field then this effects the Call-ID so the SIP software sees a reply to the INVITE as another message ! !
Simon
-----Original Message----- From: Klaus Darilion [mailto:klaus.mailinglists@pernau.at] Sent: 10 January 2005 22:27 To: Simon Miles Cc: serusers@lists.iptel.org Subject: Re: [Serusers] Support for Gateway still on RFC2543
There should be no problem at all - RFC 3261 is compatible with the old RFC. ser will look for the "lr" parameter in the via headers and will use strict routing if the lr parameter is not found in the topmost via
header.
regards, klaus
Simon Miles wrote:
Dear Community,
I still have gateways that confirm to RFC2543 and not the newer RFC3261. This means the use of URI and To fields are different. Is there any way of telling sip_router that it needs to conform to the old spec ?
Thanks
Simon
--
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
Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
-
Jan Janak -
Joao Pereira -
Klaus Darilion -
Simon Miles