[OpenSIPS-Users] topology_hiding function and loose_route etc
I have modified my proxy config to support topology_hiding function of dialog module. But I see lot of dialog related errors like .. ERROR:dialog:push_reply_in_dialog: [487] reply in dlg state [2]: missing TAG param in TO hdr ERROR:dialog:w_validate_dialog: null dialog I am just wondering if my configuration is correct. How functions like loose_route(); match_dialog();, Validate_dialog(), fix_route_dialog should be used in production environment to cover all cases. From documentation I find code snippets explaining application for each function but how they all work together in topology_hiding function scenario? PS: I can send my config in case someone needs to have a look. John ___ Users mailing list Users@lists.opensips.org http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
[OpenSIPS-Users] Debian packages are now available for 2.1
Hi all, Thanks to Rudy Pedraza from Dynamic Packet, the APT repository (apt.opensips.org) for OpenSIPS was upgraded (please note the IP changed!) and now we have packages for 2.1 and trunk too !! Please enjoy and thank you Rudy ! Regards, -- Bogdan-Andrei Iancu OpenSIPS Founder and Developer http://www.opensips-solutions.com ___ Users mailing list Users@lists.opensips.org http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
[OpenSIPS-Users] opensips crash when imc_mi_list_rooms
Hi, My opensips crash when try to list imc rooms: opensipsctl fifo imc_list_rooms see the trace: (gdb) bt full #0 imc_mi_list_rooms (cmd_tree=0x0, param=0x0) at imc.c:714 i = optimized out len = 1 rpl_tree = 0xb71b49b0 rpl = 0xb71b49c0 node = 0xb71b49f4 attr = optimized out irp = 0xb49b3b94 p = optimized out #1 0xb70d60fc in run_mi_cmd (param=0x8b3c8a8, f=optimized out, t=0x0, cmd=optimized out) at ../../mi/mi.h:109 ret = optimized out #2 mi_fifo_server (fifo_stream=fifo_stream@entry=0x8b38378) at fifo_fnc.c:490 mi_cmd = optimized out mi_rpl = 0xb71a6a10 hdl = 0x0 line_len = 1 file_sep = optimized out command = optimized out file = optimized out f = 0xb71a6a10 reply_stream = 0x8b3c8a8 __FUNCTION__ = mi_fifo_server #3 0xb70d7601 in fifo_process (rank=0) at mi_fifo.c:213 fifo_stream = 0x8b38378 __FUNCTION__ = fifo_process #4 0x080ed8bf in start_module_procs () at sr_module.c:586 m = optimized out n = optimized out l = optimized out x = optimized out __FUNCTION__ = start_module_procs #5 0x0805df6d in main_loop () at main.c:865 i = optimized out pid = optimized out si = optimized out startup_done = 0x0 chd_rank = 0 rc = optimized out load_p = 0x0 #6 main (argc=5, argv=0xbfd244e4) at main.c:1634 cfg_log_stderr = optimized out cfg_stream = 0x8b24008 c = optimized out r = optimized out tmp = 0x5 Address 0x5 out of bounds tmp_len = optimized out port = optimized out proto = optimized out options = 0x81e78f8 f:cCm:M:b:l:n:N:rRvdDFETSVhw:t:u:g:P:G:W:o: ret = -1 seed = 1704724837 rfd = optimized out __FUNCTION__ = main Regards, -- Dani Popa ___ Users mailing list Users@lists.opensips.org http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
[OpenSIPS-Users] difference between failed and missed transactions.
Hi guys! Hope everyone had a nice weekend. Could someone please tell me what is difference between failed and missed transactions. If i set setflag(ACC_MISSED) and user does not answer the call then missed transaction is logged and if user does reject the call then I see same things in syslog, which must not be because call is not missed but failed. Could someone please tell me what is difference between missed and failed transaction. And under which scenario I should set the missed, failed flags. Thanks for you help. ___ Users mailing list Users@lists.opensips.org http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] difference between failed and missed transactions.
Hello Younas, The two evens (missed and failed) are on different level of a transaction. A Missed Call event happens on the outbound side of OpenSIPS (OpenSIPS talking to callee) and means a branch of the transaction got a negative reply. A Failed Transaction event happens on the inbound side of OpenSIPS (OpenSIPS talking to caller) and means OpenSIPS terminating the whole transaction with a negative reply - a negative reply is sent back to caller, not more serial forking is possible, transaction completed. If you have call from Alice to Bob, call first getting to Bob, Bob has DnD, so a negative reply is received from callee - A Missed Call event; after that, OpenSIPS can do serial forking and send the call to VM , so the call will establish after all - the call will not have a Failed Transaction event. Regards, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu OpenSIPS Founder and Developer http://www.opensips-solutions.com On 15.06.2015 18:56, Aqs Younas wrote: Hi guys! Hope everyone had a nice weekend. Could someone please tell me what is difference between failed and missed transactions. If i set setflag(ACC_MISSED) and user does not answer the call then missed transaction is logged and if user does reject the call then I see same things in syslog, which must not be because call is not missed but failed. Could someone please tell me what is difference between missed and failed transaction. And under which scenario I should set the missed, failed flags. Thanks for you help. ___ Users mailing list Users@lists.opensips.org http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users ___ Users mailing list Users@lists.opensips.org http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] topology_hiding function and loose_route etc
Hello Bogdan, Thank you I will just ignore them. I have one more related issue. I am using uac_replace_from in auto mode along with topology_hiding. In a case when UA sends opensips a REInvite , my end carrier seem to completely ignore the Reinvite. I noticed that From URI in original Invite is different from the one sent in Reinvite (Only change is caller ID) Is there something I should know when mixing topology_hiding function and uac_replace_from? Regards John On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 9:57 PM, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu bog...@opensips.org wrote: Hi John, The module complains of receiving in Early state a reply without tag param in TO header - something like that is bogus. Best regards, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu OpenSIPS Founder and Developerhttp://www.opensips-solutions.com On 15.06.2015 12:32, John Nash wrote: I have modified my proxy config to support topology_hiding function of dialog module. But I see lot of dialog related errors like .. ERROR:dialog:push_reply_in_dialog: [487] reply in dlg state [2]: missing TAG param in TO hdr ERROR:dialog:w_validate_dialog: null dialog I am just wondering if my configuration is correct. How functions like loose_route(); match_dialog();, Validate_dialog(), fix_route_dialog should be used in production environment to cover all cases. From documentation I find code snippets explaining application for each function but how they all work together in topology_hiding function scenario? PS: I can send my config in case someone needs to have a look. John ___ Users mailing listUsers@lists.opensips.orghttp://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users ___ Users mailing list Users@lists.opensips.org http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] topology_hiding function and loose_route etc
Hi John, The module complains of receiving in Early state a reply without tag param in TO header - something like that is bogus. Best regards, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu OpenSIPS Founder and Developer http://www.opensips-solutions.com On 15.06.2015 12:32, John Nash wrote: I have modified my proxy config to support topology_hiding function of dialog module. But I see lot of dialog related errors like .. ERROR:dialog:push_reply_in_dialog: [487] reply in dlg state [2]: missing TAG param in TO hdr ERROR:dialog:w_validate_dialog: null dialog I am just wondering if my configuration is correct. How functions like loose_route(); match_dialog();, Validate_dialog(), fix_route_dialog should be used in production environment to cover all cases. From documentation I find code snippets explaining application for each function but how they all work together in topology_hiding function scenario? PS: I can send my config in case someone needs to have a look. John ___ Users mailing list Users@lists.opensips.org http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users ___ Users mailing list Users@lists.opensips.org http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] opensips crash when imc_mi_list_rooms
Hey Dany, What version of OpenSIPS are you using ? Also, can you provide (off list) the DB conf you / rooms sets you may have (or whatever is required to reproduce the crash). Thanks and regards, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu OpenSIPS Founder and Developer http://www.opensips-solutions.com On 15.06.2015 18:31, Dani Popa wrote: Hi, My opensips crash when try to list imc rooms: opensipsctl fifo imc_list_rooms see the trace: (gdb) bt full #0 imc_mi_list_rooms (cmd_tree=0x0, param=0x0) at imc.c:714 i = optimized out len = 1 rpl_tree = 0xb71b49b0 rpl = 0xb71b49c0 node = 0xb71b49f4 attr = optimized out irp = 0xb49b3b94 p = optimized out #1 0xb70d60fc in run_mi_cmd (param=0x8b3c8a8, f=optimized out, t=0x0, cmd=optimized out) at ../../mi/mi.h:109 ret = optimized out #2 mi_fifo_server (fifo_stream=fifo_stream@entry=0x8b38378) at fifo_fnc.c:490 mi_cmd = optimized out mi_rpl = 0xb71a6a10 hdl = 0x0 line_len = 1 file_sep = optimized out command = optimized out file = optimized out f = 0xb71a6a10 reply_stream = 0x8b3c8a8 __FUNCTION__ = mi_fifo_server #3 0xb70d7601 in fifo_process (rank=0) at mi_fifo.c:213 fifo_stream = 0x8b38378 __FUNCTION__ = fifo_process #4 0x080ed8bf in start_module_procs () at sr_module.c:586 m = optimized out n = optimized out l = optimized out x = optimized out __FUNCTION__ = start_module_procs #5 0x0805df6d in main_loop () at main.c:865 i = optimized out pid = optimized out si = optimized out startup_done = 0x0 chd_rank = 0 rc = optimized out load_p = 0x0 #6 main (argc=5, argv=0xbfd244e4) at main.c:1634 cfg_log_stderr = optimized out cfg_stream = 0x8b24008 c = optimized out r = optimized out tmp = 0x5 Address 0x5 out of bounds tmp_len = optimized out port = optimized out proto = optimized out options = 0x81e78f8 f:cCm:M:b:l:n:N:rRvdDFETSVhw:t:u:g:P:G:W:o: ret = -1 seed = 1704724837 rfd = optimized out __FUNCTION__ = main Regards, -- Dani Popa ___ Users mailing list Users@lists.opensips.org http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users ___ Users mailing list Users@lists.opensips.org http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] multiple registration with single softphone
Yea,
The registration function looks fine. If x-lite doesnt reuse the call ID
then it will be treated a completely different registration entry. It
shouldn't be a problem if the 2nd registration attempt is being generated
near the current registration expiry time.
On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 2:53 PM, Aqs Younas aqsyou...@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry for my late reply.
Yes, second registration is done before expiry time and server does send
expire value of 3600 in 200 ok. Below is my registration code.
if (is_method(REGISTER)){
if(!www_authorize(, subscriber)){
www_challenge(, 0);
exit;
}
if (!save(location))
sl_reply_error();
exit;
}
I think issue is with x-lite, because when i used zoiper, there was only
one registration.
Thanks for you help.
On 12 June 2015 at 15:23, Tito Cumpen t...@xsvoce.com wrote:
Aqs,
It looks like these a two separate entries based on the call-id:
76589ZTlhODhlODE3MjY1N2E5ZGJhM2M0MjNjOWM3NDI3ODU
76589NjY1NjYxNDdjNjBjNjEyYmVjN2JhMDQzYzRjYzVmY2I
Naturally the client should refresh the registration by re-using the call
id. The server would respond with challenge specifying the attached auth
header was stale. The UAC would reply with a newly generated auth header.
Is this second registration attempt being made prior the to registration
expiry time? is the server sending a 200 ok with an expiry time in the
contact field? Also can you share your registration function?
Thanks,
Tito
On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 5:56 PM, Aqs Younas aqsyou...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for you answer. Below is re-captured packets.
Session Initiation Protocol (REGISTER)
Message Header
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.1.5:60513
;branch=z9hG4bK-524287-1---e033e301133bdc5b;rport
Max-Forwards: 70
Contact: sip:14048002020@192.168.1.5:60513
;rinstance=8e3eef20967b3294
To: sip:14048002020@192.168.1.60
From: sip:14048002020@192.168.1.60;tag=71dd180b
Call-ID: 76589NjY1NjYxNDdjNjBjNjEyYmVjN2JhMDQzYzRjYzVmY2I
CSeq: 1 REGISTER
Expires: 3600
Allow: SUBSCRIBE, NOTIFY, INVITE, ACK, CANCEL, BYE, REFER, INFO,
MESSAGE
User-Agent: X-Lite 4.8.4 76589-dcb8bf14-W6.2
Content-Length: 0
Request-Line: REGISTER sip:192.168.1.60 SIP/2.0
Message Header
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.1.5:60513
;branch=z9hG4bK-524287-1---b5b9926774d60123;rport
Max-Forwards: 70
Contact: sip:14048002020@192.168.1.5:60513
;rinstance=f9c1973b37048538
To: sip:14048002020@192.168.1.60
From: sip:14048002020@192.168.1.60;tag=e4ef7105
Call-ID: 76589ZTlhODhlODE3MjY1N2E5ZGJhM2M0MjNjOWM3NDI3ODU
CSeq: 1 REGISTER
Expires: 3600
Allow: SUBSCRIBE, NOTIFY, INVITE, ACK, CANCEL, BYE, REFER, INFO,
MESSAGE
User-Agent: X-Lite 4.8.4 76589-dcb8bf14-W6.2
Content-Length: 0
Both result successful registration.
On 12 June 2015 at 14:23, Tito Cumpen t...@xsvoce.com wrote:
Do you have an example of the request? Are the call id's matching ?
On Jun 12, 2015 5:21 PM, Aqs Younas aqsyou...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi, Users.
I try to register my x-lite phone with opensips that is successfully
registered.But i see after some time, x-lite sends another register
request
and there are two entries for same username in location table.
Username Contact
14048002020 sip:14048002020@192.168.1.5:61404
;rinstance=7792871469eb2327
14048002020 sip:14048002020@192.168.1.5:61404
;rinstance=29fcf1d85b004efe
I want, user must be register with different softphone for same
username. Like second entry could be from zoiper,etc but not from same
x-lite for 14048002020.
Secondly, when i try to run, ./opensipsctl fifo get_statistics
accepted_regs
It gives.
registrar:accepted_regs:: 3
But there are only 2 entries in location table.
Please pardon me for my naive question, just started learning this
amazing thing.
Thanks
___
Users mailing list
Users@lists.opensips.org
http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
___
Users mailing list
Users@lists.opensips.org
http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
___
Users mailing list
Users@lists.opensips.org
http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
___
Users mailing list
Users@lists.opensips.org
http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
___
Users mailing list
Users@lists.opensips.org
http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
___
Users mailing list
Users@lists.opensips.org
Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] ack from remote opensips proxy being dropped.
Hi Tito, I have your trace downloaded and trying to look into it in the next days. Regards, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu OpenSIPS Founder and Developer http://www.opensips-solutions.com On 12.06.2015 20:05, Tito Cumpen wrote: Does anyone in the group have any ideas on this issue? this is puts a crux on my distributed HA/load balanced design. Since I can't fork calls to proxies in which other users may reside on. On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 7:05 PM, Tito Cumpen t...@xsvoce.com mailto:t...@xsvoce.com wrote: Group, I am having issues with opensips version: opensips 2.2-dev (x86_64/linux) git revision: 1e998bb forwarding an ack post 200 ok sourcing from a remote opensips proxy is not being sent to the UAC to initiate the dialogue. Not sure what has changed from 1.11 as far as this sort of processing but now the ack is being dropped. I have taken a trace and logs from the side that wont transmit the ack. https://www.dropbox.com/s/kznqi18h7rokhvj/2.2issues.tar?dl=0 I have also included the opensips.cfg in case there are any questions regarding the config. Thanks, Tito ___ Users mailing list Users@lists.opensips.org http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users ___ Users mailing list Users@lists.opensips.org http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
