Hey All,I'm using the dialplan module and trying to use an avp for the
dpid.. avp_print shows my avp like this:
Apr 30 21:48:26 sip1 /usr/local/sbin/opensips[8079]:
INFO:avpops:ops_print_avp: p=0xb620c0f8, flags=0x0003
Apr 30 21:48:26 sip1 /usr/local/sbin/opensips[8079]:
INFO:avpops:ops_print_avp:
Open a bug in the tracker. Drouting should accept NULL values as
prefix and treat them as empty strings.
Regards,
Ovidiu Sas
On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 5:54 PM, Noel R. Morais wrote:
> Hi Guys,
>
> I would like to know How do I set a default rule in drouting module using
> Oracle? The problem is t
Hi Guys,
I would like to know How do I set a default rule in drouting module using
Oracle? The problem is that Oracle doesn't accept blank strings, blank
string are considered null values and drouting skip rules with null values
as prefix.
So, What do I do now? hehe
Thanks Guys,
Noel
___
El Jueves, 30 de Abril de 2009, Dan Pascu escribió:
> I said that to highlight that with media sessions in the range of
> hundreds, it loads the machine so little that it doesn't show, so it can
> be installed on the sip proxy machine without affecting it. Geez.
>
> So you concluded that if it can
On Thursday 30 April 2009, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
> > 2. It needs a specialized B2BUA box with custom logic.
>
> Why couldn't it be integrated in the same proxy box? or why couldn't
> it replace the proxy?
It could. But can it support the same load as the proxy, so it can be used
as a replace
On Thursday 30 April 2009, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
> 2009/4/30 Dan Pascu :
>
> > With 20 media relays I expect to drive 6+ simultaneous sessions.
Why
> > do you estimate you need that many, when I can drive thousands of
sessions
> > with a single machine and max out the network bandwidth m
I think I will try the option to use the "textops" module to enforce the
correct order of Record-Route to validate this is my problem etc.
From: users-boun...@lists.opensips.org on behalf of Julien Chavanton
Sent: Thu 30/04/2009 3:44 PM
To: Bogdan-Andrei Ianc
2009/4/30 Dan Pascu :
> On Thursday 30 April 2009, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
>> 2009/4/30 kokoska rokoska :
>> > FYI - we are relaying more than 1000 RTP sessions with one server (2x
>> > QuadCore) using RTPproxy (packets goes to user space) without visible
>> > load on the server. It is almost idl
2009/4/30 Dan Pascu :
> With 20 media relays I expect to drive 6+ simultaneous sessions. Why
> do you estimate you need that many, when I can drive thousands of sessions
> with a single machine and max out the network bandwidth much sooner than
> maxing out the CPU of that machine?
You said:
On Thursday 30 April 2009, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
> 2009/4/30 kokoska rokoska :
> > FYI - we are relaying more than 1000 RTP sessions with one server (2x
> > QuadCore) using RTPproxy (packets goes to user space) without visible
> > load on the server. It is almost idle.
> > So I expect "kernel"
2009/4/30 Dan Pascu :
> The B2BUA based solution:
>
> 1. It generates the same amount of media traffic from the network.
Just in the case of calls to a PSTN gw (ok, this is what we are speaking about).
> 2. It needs a specialized B2BUA box with custom logic.
Why couldn't it be integrated in the
On Thursday 30 April 2009, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
> 2009/4/30 Dan Pascu :
> > Continuing to debate this in pointless. I already showed you that a
> > solution based on a media relay can be made as cheap as the B2BUA
based
> > solution that you promote, while being much more accurate.
>
> 1 med
On Thursday 30 April 2009, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
> Dan, I'm not trying to say which option is better. I just mean that
> doing media-relaying is not the *only* or better solution for all the
> cases.
Nobody ever claimed such a thing. I thought the point was to offer
alternatives and let the u
2009/4/30 kokoska rokoska :
> FYI - we are relaying more than 1000 RTP sessions with one server (2x
> QuadCore) using RTPproxy (packets goes to user space) without visible
> load on the server. It is almost idle.
> So I expect "kernel" (i.e. media-proxy) could go even far-far away :-)
That's reall
Iñaki Baz Castillo napsal(a):
> 2009/4/30 Dan Pascu :
>> Continuing to debate this in pointless. I already showed you that a
>> solution based on a media relay can be made as cheap as the B2BUA based
>> solution that you promote, while being much more accurate.
>
> 1 media-proxy => 100 R
2009/4/30 Dan Pascu :
> Continuing to debate this in pointless. I already showed you that a
> solution based on a media relay can be made as cheap as the B2BUA based
> solution that you promote, while being much more accurate.
1 media-proxy => 100 RTP sessions (100 calls)
X media-proxy =>
On Thursday 30 April 2009, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
> No, a proxy is fully vulnerable to a spoofed BYE, why? because the
> proxy MUST route the BYE according to RURI, Route headers..., while a
> B2BUA doesn't route it, just "eats" it and generate a new one in leg
> B.
I think we already agreed th
2009/4/30 Dan Pascu :
> I don't think you would. Mediaproxy will most likely max out your network
> capacity before needing another server (at least with the right hardware).
>
> Also you seem to forget that your "cheaper" solution still needs an extra
> box as well (the B2BUA). Unless by cheap yo
2009/4/30 Adrian Georgescu :
> > No, a proxy is fully vulnerable to a spoofed BYE, why? because the
> > proxy MUST route the BYE according to RURI, Route headers..., while a
> > B2BUA doesn't route it, just "eats" it and generate a new one in leg
>
> As far as I know with OpenSIPS you could chose,
thank you, this is a problem as I do not control this proxy (2.2.2.2), is there
a suggested way of handling this problem ?
Maybe there is something esle wrong on my side cusaing this problem so I am
including the SIP communication between the proxy this time
#
U 1.1.1.1:5060 -> 2.2.2.2:50
On Thursday 30 April 2009, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
> >> Also, for calls to a gateway in our same datacenter, forcing the RTP
> >> through a media-proxy is not the only solution. Using SessionTimers
> >> (so a B2BUA is required and not just a proxy) is also a good solution
> >> (and cheaper since
Hi Julian,
Julien Chavanton wrote:
>
>
> UA --> PROXY 1.1.1.1 --> PROXY 2.2.2.2 --> UA
>
> P1 --> P2
> INVITE
> Record-Route:
>
> P2 --> P1
> 100 Trying
> Record-Route:
> Record-Route:
>
This is not correct. The RR of P2 most me on top of RR of P1 - adding RR
headers wo
On Apr 30, 2009, at 1:49 PM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
2009/4/30 Adrian Georgescu :
You can use the dialog module to do the same and generate your own
correct
BYEs instead of relaying them, couldn't you?
You have full control over the reply route and can do all you
describe in
the proxy
2009/4/30 Chris Maciejewski :
> Hi,
>
> In a REQUEST_ROUTE I am calling fix_nated_contact(); before handling
> REGISTER packets and I can see in a 'location' table
> is correctly changed to
> .
>
> However when I call xlog(" CONTACT: $ct"); is still shows original
> contact .
>
> How can I access
Hi,
In a REQUEST_ROUTE I am calling fix_nated_contact(); before handling
REGISTER packets and I can see in a 'location' table
is correctly changed to
.
However when I call xlog(" CONTACT: $ct"); is still shows original
contact .
How can I access rewritten (with the public IP) contact in a REQUE
Hi Francisco,
First of all, maybe it will be a good idea to upgrade to OpenSIPS 1.5.1
- along the versions many bugs were fixed and 1.2 is a really old one.
Have you tried to place an xlog and print the fwdbusy avp just before
the avp_pushto() ?
Regards,
Bogdan
Francisco Javier Lizaran Vilche
UA --> PROXY 1.1.1.1 --> PROXY 2.2.2.2 --> UA
P1 --> P2
INVITE
Record-Route:
P2 --> P1
100 Trying
Record-Route:
Record-Route:
Is there something wrong ? shouldn't proxy 2.2.2.2 add his Record-Route on top
of the existing Record-Route ?
From: Bogda
2009/4/30 Adrian Georgescu :
> You can use the dialog module to do the same and generate your own correct
> BYEs instead of relaying them, couldn't you?
>
> You have full control over the reply route and can do all you describe in
> the proxy, can't you?
>
> What can a B2BUA detect that the proxy
Hi Chris,
If you want, you may add this tip here:
http://www.opensips.org/Resources/DocsTipsFaqs
Thanks and regards,
Bogdan
Chris Maciejewski wrote:
> Hi Bogdan,
>
> Thanks for you help.
>
> For anyone interested a bit of PHP code, which decodes methods
> supported by UA from 'methods' colum
On Apr 30, 2009, at 12:28 PM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
2009/4/30 Adrian Georgescu :
The more load you have at some moment in time you need to add more
servers.
The curent design allows MP2 to handle several thousands of
simultaneous
sessions. Anyway, far from trying to advocate its load ca
2009/4/30 Adrian Georgescu :
> The more load you have at some moment in time you need to add more servers.
> The curent design allows MP2 to handle several thousands of simultaneous
> sessions. Anyway, far from trying to advocate its load capabilities the
> question we all try to find the answer fo
>> No _new_ servers are needed, as in you can
>> reuse any existing server for this purpose. Nowadays mediaproxy is
>> very
>> efficient because it uses conntrack rules in the kernel to forward
>> the
>> packets. It does forward hundreds of media streams with virtually
>> no load
>> on the CP
2009/4/30 Dan Pascu :
> On Thursday 30 April 2009, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
>> Yes, I agree on it. However I just wanted to mean that using a
>> media-proxy is not the best solution for all the cases, specially when
>> clients are behind same NAT (an office for example) and the PBX/Proxy
>> is hos
On Thursday 30 April 2009, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
> Yes, I agree on it. However I just wanted to mean that using a
> media-proxy is not the best solution for all the cases, specially when
> clients are behind same NAT (an office for example) and the PBX/Proxy
> is hosted in some datacenter.
The
2009/4/30 Bogdan-Andrei Iancu :
>> Yes, I agree on it. However I just wanted to mean that using a
>> media-proxy is not the best solution for all the cases, specially when
>> clients are behind same NAT (an office for example)
>
> from the open internet, you cannot tell (100% sure) if two devices a
Hi all:
Have running this script on Openser 1.2.3-notls version managing forwards
this way:
route[3]{
...
t_on_failure("1");
if avp_db_load("$ru", "*") {
if (is_avp_set("$avp(s:fwdbusy)/s")) {
setflag(23);
};
...
failure_route[1] {
...
if ((isflagset(2
Hi Inaki,
Some inline notes :) :
Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
> 2009/4/30 Dan Pascu :
>
>> I'm sure there is this kind (and unfortunately not in short supply), but
>> you do realize that if some employee has a expertise to hack a SIP device
>> to send abnormal BYE requests that attempt to fake th
2009/4/30 Dan Pascu :
> I'm sure there is this kind (and unfortunately not in short supply), but
> you do realize that if some employee has a expertise to hack a SIP device
> to send abnormal BYE requests that attempt to fake the closing of the SIP
> session while preventing the media from closing,
Hi Chris,
That field is internally used, so it is not so friendly to look at :).
This value is a bitmask containing the supported methods. The definition
of each method (corresponding bit in the mask) can be found in
parser/msg_parser.h +67 .
7999 = 4096 + 2048 + 1024 + 512 + 256 + 32 + 16 + 8
Hi Julien,
I think Asterisk is doing the job properly. As you see the 200 OK has:
Contact: .
Record-Route: .
Record-Route: .
So, Asterisk is generating the ACK with the Contact in RURI and the
Route set in the reverted order (correct loose routing).
-> RURI: sip:15141234...@2.2.2.2
40 matches
Mail list logo
