Salut Sica,
So you say that openser does retransmission even after receiving the
200 OK for the request? are you sure it is about the same transaction?
Could you provide the debug log showing also the retransmission events?
(just send me the entire log).
Salutari,
Bogdan
Vasile Zaharia wrote
Hi Nick!
This is a known problem with ENUM - lame delegations will increase DNS
lookup duration and you can't avoid it (it also happened to e164.arpa
last year when Italy's name server were offline).
You should adjust DNS timeouts (see core cookbook on openser wiki) and
make sure to reply with
Salut Bogdan,
Thank you for your response.
I think the reply is correct, because in the log file I can see:
2007-10-15 06:28:48.545|t_lookup.c:824|t_reply_matching|DEBUG:
t_reply_matching: reply matched (T=0xb5e98bd8)!\n
2007-10-15 06:28:48.545|t_lookup.c:924|t_check|DEBUG: t_check: end=0xb5e98b
Hi Thiago,
Take a look here:
http://lists.openser.org/pipermail/users/2005-November/002086.html
Regards,
Bogdan
Thiago Maluf wrote:
> Can Someone describe to me how work and when use the function
> serialize_branches!
> Thanks in advanced,
> Thiago
>
> --
>
Hi Sergi,
The START acc event (corresponding to INVITE) has no dependency to the
ACK. Do you get any INVITE acc in your DB?
regards,
Bogdan
[ACTIVENDY] NOC wrote:
> Hi,
>
>I need to know when a channel of my media gateway is busy (included
> when the call is still ringing, etc). I have my
Salut Sica,
The problem may reside in two places:
1) the reply is not correct and the client is not able to match it
to the sent request (and keeps retransmitting)
2) the client is not able to match (due whatever other bugs) the reply.
Salutari,
Bogdan
Vasile Zaharia wrote:
> Hi all,
>
Hi Gregorio,
the SVN head is the 1.3 version and it is in testing phase, being
prepared to be released in ~ one month. If there are issues you discover
with this version, please report in order to be fixed.
Regards,
Bogdan
Gregorio wrote:
>
> Hi all.
>
> I am installing openSer Head revision (
Hi Morten,
The use_domain parameter from the uri_db module is used only by the
"does_user_exists" function.
The check_* functions, do not use it - with use_uri_table they all the
time check the digest username and realm against username.
regards,
bogdan
Morten Isaksen wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Runing O
Hi George,
There are two cases you are referring at:
1) flags inheritance by the replies (set flag in INVITE and see it in
replies) - is this working?
2) flags inheritance by the CANCEL (set flag in INVITE and see it in
CANCEL req/reply) - this is know not to work as so far the CANCEL was a
d
Hi Iñaki,
Currently this is not possible, but there were some discussions about
this feature some time ago (if I'm not wrong, there is a feature request
about this on the tracker).
The only custom information you can push form script (at save) and
retrieved (at lookup) are the branch flags :).
Gregorio,
Gregorio wrote:
> Hi all.
>
>
>
> I am having some trouble with the sentence ‘if (uri==myself) ’ in the
> config script. The REGISTER request URI is ‘sip:mydomain’ and ‘mydomain’
> is in my ‘hosts’ file and in the database table (‘domain’ table) but in
> the log I can see that ‘(u
Hello Anca
With the current release 2993 this works. In general I use no etag
param. I know what you mean by that it changes (for re-updates initiated
by PUA, last numbers change e.g. from 1.0 to 2.1).
I have now a different error though, even worse:
First sending publish with infinite Expires:
Hello,
On 10/29/07 18:22, Gregorio wrote:
>
> Hi all.
>
> I am having some trouble with the sentence ‘if (uri==myself) ’ in the
> config script. The REGISTER request URI is ‘sip:mydomain’ and
> ‘mydomain’ is in my ‘hosts’ file and in the database table (‘domain’
> table) but in the log I can se
Hi all.
I am having some trouble with the sentence 'if (uri==myself) ' in the config
script. The REGISTER request URI is 'sip:mydomain' and 'mydomain' is in my
'hosts' file and in the database table ('domain' table) but in the log I can
see that '(uri==myself)' is false.
Someone can guess wha
I'm having some real problems with enum lookup delays (20 or 30 seconds
before they come back) I'm using e164.arpa then nrenum.net, these seem
to have worked fine until yesterday evening it seems...
Does anyone have any info on whether either of these services is having
problems???
___
Hi,
Following on from last week's quest for the broken ALG fix in openser 1.1,
I am trying to re-write the ACK that replies to the 200 OK the gateway
sends when the call is connected, so that it arrives at the gateway
instead of being sent back to the sender.
This is the bad ACK:
gateway ip=
Hello,
If you set the etag parameter when sending the "Expires: 0 " command, it
might be that it is no longer valid. This happens if you first give a
command with Expires value grater than the maximum accepted value by
presence module. Then, the pua will generate itself updates such that
the c
Hi, I'd like to extend the "location" table with more attributes and get them
as AVP's after "lookup()" function. Is it any automatic way to do that?
I mean something as "auth_db" module's "load_credentials" that load AVP's with
more subscriber data.
I don't find it so I think I'll need to do a
Dear all
After long evaluation I still have the following error and no solution
yet to solve it.
I am using OpenSER current trunk version, but also with older versions
(e.g. 2597, 2619) I am having the problem.
With version 2404 it seems to work, although I cannot use that version
and have to
El Monday 29 October 2007 14:02:23 Juha Heinanen escribió:
> Iñaki Baz Castillo writes:
> > Any reason for this? is it a bug? it worked in 1.2.X.
>
> daniel fixed a $hdr related bug in trunk a couple of days ago. have you
> tried with latest trunk?
Just fixed and it works. Thanks.
> questions
That's a bug mistakenly introduced and then fixed in the SVN 2988. Do an
update and try again.
Daniel
On 10/29/07 14:36, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
> SVN 2983
>
> I receive a INVITE with "Forwarded" header:
>
> Forwarded: by sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -
>
> but OpenSer can't detect
Iñaki Baz Castillo writes:
> Any reason for this? is it a bug? it worked in 1.2.X.
daniel fixed a $hdr related bug in trunk a couple of days ago. have you
tried with latest trunk?
questions regarding trunk should go to devel, not users mailing list.
-- juha
_
I downloaded the current revision of the code and the scrip worked.
Thanks.
-Mensaje original-
De: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
En nombre de Gregorio
Enviado el: viernes, 26 de octubre de 2007 18:12
Para: 'Henning Westerholt'
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Asunto: Re: [OpenSER-Users
SVN 2983
I receive a INVITE with "Forwarded" header:
Forwarded: by sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
but OpenSer can't detect it in anyway (I've tryed all of this):
xlog("L_ERROR","hdr(Forwarded) = $(hdr('Forwarded')) $(hdr(Forwarded)[1])
$(hdr('Forwarded')[1]) $(hdr(Forwarded)[*])\n");
raviprakash sunkara wrote:
> As per Klaus says 100 %. because OpenSER is powerfull sip signalling.
> its cann't do media tracking the call, So if u pass all the calls to
> Asterisk, then asterisk creates the Channel. Barging and ChanSpy in
> Asterisk works on Channels base.
Thanks for the suggest
Flavio Goncalves wrote:
> For SIP, Barge-in is covered in the RFC3911 (Join Header). This
> functionality is independent of the Proxy. Is has to be implemented in
> the phone. Currently, I don´t know any phone that has implemented this
> RFC. Pingtel has participated in this RFC, so my best bet i
Hello,
just wanted to send the last reminder, for those that missed the
announcement, now are the last days you can register (free of charge) to
the OpenSER Admin Training session, at VoN Boston, Nov 1. More details
are available at:
http://www.openser.org/mos/view/OpenSER-Admin-Course---Bosto
Hello all,
I am running into a strange problem with message (or transaction) flags.
I set a message flag while processing the INVITE, but this flag does not
appear in any messages that belong to the same transaction. I discovered
this while trying to resolved an issue with Re-INVITEs. Now I am te
El Friday 26 October 2007 14:27:36 Aymeric Moizard escribió:
> First: from rfc: "the To tag of the response to the CANCEL and the To tag
> in the response to the original request SHOULD be the same"
>
> -> Thus, there is no reason to send the tag from a provisionnal response
> in the CANCEL ans
29 matches
Mail list logo
