Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] Feature Request - drouting

Hi Mark, The drouting module does prefix based routing, while your suggestion is about a variable part at the end of the number. If you do not like the idea of expanding the rule into multiple prefixes, maybe take a look at the dialplan module which does regexp based matching (but take care,

[OpenSIPS-Users] Feature Request - drouting

Hi everyone I am using drouting() which is working well but I am finding the prefix matching a little limited. It would be really useful to be able to match mid-range prefixes. For example, in Asterisk you can do do things like: _+44123456789[2,3] Which only matches prefixes ending 2 or 3. Or:

Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] feature request

Hello Răzvan, Thank you. I added to the list. volga629 On 3/31/20 9:23 AM, Răzvan Crainea wrote: Hi, Volga! This looks like a valid feature request. Please open this feature request on our tracker[1], so we can

[OpenSIPS-Users] feature request

Hello Everyone, I would like request add rfc3994 to presence modules that allow use of  application/im-iscomposing+xml. https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3994.txt Any opinion welcome. volga629

Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] Feature request - pseudo-variable for destination IP address

I am interested Outlook voor iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef> downloaden Van: Users namens Vitalii Aleksandrov Verzonden: donderdag, juli 18, 2019 4:56 PM Aan: users@lists.opensips.org Onderwerp: Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] Feature request - pseudo-va

Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] Feature request - pseudo-variable for destination IP address

he request was > > receeived is private. I am using 1 to 1 NAT. > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Ovidiu Sas" > > To: "OpenSIPS users mailling list" > > Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2019 3:31:34 PM

Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] Feature request - pseudo-variable for destination IP address

From: "Ovidiu Sas" To: "OpenSIPS users mailling list" Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2019 3:31:34 PM Subject: Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] Feature request - pseudo-variable for destination IP address Check out the $Ri pvar: https://www.opensips.org/Document

Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] Feature request - pseudo-variable for destination IP address

Thank you Yuri Ritvin {ip.resolve} transform works for me. The example given in the documentation is misleading. You can't use a literal string. You need to put into a var of some sort and then transform it. On Thursday, June 27, 2019 3:35:37 P.M. PDT rob.d...@telus.net wrote: > On second

Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] Feature request - pseudo-variable for destination IP address

t; wrote: Unfortunately the address of the interface where the request was receeived is private. I am using 1 to 1 NAT. - Original Message - From: "Ovidiu Sas" To: "OpenSIPS users mailling list" Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2019 3:31:34 PM

Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] Feature request - pseudo-variable for destination IP address

Unfortunately the address of the interface where the request was receeived is private. I am using 1 to 1 NAT. - Original Message - From: "Ovidiu Sas" To: "OpenSIPS users mailling list" Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2019 3:31:34 PM Subject: Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] Feat

Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] Feature request - pseudo-variable for destination IP address

On second thought it probably isn't poosible to do in any direct way because the information is lost in the router. The only possible way is a DNS query. - Original Message - From: "rob dyck" To: users@lists.opensips.org Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2019 3:21:59 PM Subject: Feature request

Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] Feature request - pseudo-variable for destination IP address

Check out the $Ri pvar: https://www.opensips.org/Documentation/Script-CoreVar-3-0#toc78 -ovidiu On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 6:23 PM rob.d...@telus.net wrote: > > I was looking for something similar to the $si PV but for the destination IP > address. Either it doesn't exist or I am blind. I can't

[OpenSIPS-Users] Feature request - pseudo-variable for destination IP address

I was looking for something similar to the $si PV but for the destination IP address. Either it doesn't exist or I am blind. I can't find things in the refrigerator either. The motivation. I have a working instance of Opensips with a basic residential configuration. I extended it to allow

Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] Feature request? Script Var / AVP variables in route function.

] On Behalf Of Jim DeVito Sent: Donnerstag, 21. September 2017 14:58 To: OpenSIPS users mailling list <users@lists.opensips.org> Subject: Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] Feature request? Script Var / AVP variables in route function. Hmmm. I want to use the contents of $avp(carrier_id) as the route na

Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] Feature request? Script Var / AVP variables in route function.

Hmmm. I want to use the contents of $avp(carrier_id) as the route name. So if $avp(carrier_id) is 25 I want it to call the routing block route[25]. On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 8:52 AM, Răzvan Crainea wrote: > Hi, Jim! > > You should have a name for the route, such as: > >

Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] Feature request? Script Var / AVP variables in route function.

Hi, Jim! You should have a name for the route, such as: route(route_name, $avp(carrier_id)); Best regards, Răzvan Crainea OpenSIPS Developer www.opensips-solutions.com On 09/21/2017 03:43 PM, Jim DeVito wrote: Hi Razvan, So what am I doing wrong with route($avp(carrier_id)); It

Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] Feature request? Script Var / AVP variables in route function.

Hi Razvan, So what am I doing wrong with route($avp(carrier_id)); It produces... ...line 318, column 53-54: bad routeargument Thanks!! On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 8:31 AM, Răzvan Crainea wrote: > Hi, Jim! > > Script variables or AVPs are PV (pseudo-variables) themselves,

Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] Feature request? Script Var / AVP variables in route function.

Hi, Jim! Script variables or AVPs are PV (pseudo-variables) themselves, so you should be able to use them. Best regards, Răzvan Crainea OpenSIPS Developer www.opensips-solutions.com On 09/21/2017 03:14 PM, Jim DeVito wrote: Hi All, It's my understanding only PV, integers and strings can

[OpenSIPS-Users] Feature request? Script Var / AVP variables in route function.

Hi All, It's my understanding only PV, integers and strings can be used in the core route function. Is there a reason I don't understand why we can not use script variables or AVP's? Thanks!! - Jim DeVito Mobile 216.507.9497 ___ Users

Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] Feature request - automatic string to lower domains

Hello Daniel, What you are saying may have sense in some scenarios - could you please open a feature request on the tracker, so we will not forget about this. See: http://www.opensips.org/Development/Tracker Regards, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu OpenSIPS Founder and Developer

Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] Feature request - automatic string to lower domains

Sounds good, thanks. I have created issue #8. -dg On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 7:18 AM, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu bog...@opensips.orgwrote: ** Hello Daniel, What you are saying may have sense in some scenarios - could you please open a feature request on the tracker, so we will not forget about

[OpenSIPS-Users] Feature request - automatic string to lower domains

Have you considered a function or flag that automatically sets the domain on the RURI, From and To all lower case? We have a work around of course, to just do this manually, but figured it would be good to give some feed back. Specifically we had issues regarding auth with multi-domain support.

Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] Feature request: multiset cache interfaces and queued insertions

Hi Brett, While Couchbase supports such operations, I can't see that other familiar NoSQL back-ends support such multiset features. Could you give more examples of back-ends supporting this ? Also, it might be that doing delayed inserts for cache operations would lead to some tricky

Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] Feature request: multiset cache interfaces and queued insertions

Right it's mostly useful for append only operations like cdr writing. Of course you'll be able to do alot of that via the acc module, but this lets you write all sorts of other analytics at high insertion rate as well. Oh and speaking of append only... Couchbase does support an append method that

[OpenSIPS-Users] Feature request: multiset cache interfaces and queued insertions

Hey all, Quick feature request. Many of the cache back ends support multisets at once. I've seen tremendous speed improvements from multisets. In addition, maybe complementary, I'd like to see queues cache insertions. This is especially useful for using the cache interface for something like acc.

[OpenSIPS-Users] Feature request for OpenSIPS 1.9: support for macro definitions

Hi all. I'm relatively new to OpenSIPS and still am at the very beginning of learning how to tame this wonderful beast ;-). One thing that I, personally, find pretty uncomfortable is that in various places in the opensips.cfg one needs to use plain numbers to define or modify the behaviour. That

Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] Feature request for OpenSIPS 1.9: support for macro definitions

Hi Michael, You can already use names for the route, not only numerical IDs (without the need of defining). For flags, you can use only numbers, indeed - usually I use M4 as text preprocessor to do different complex ops over the script (like defines, ifdefs, etc). But maybe a built in

Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] Feature request for OpenSIPS 1.9: support for macro definitions

I second this as well. Named flags would make debugging and scripting quite simpler. Regards, Ali On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu bog...@opensips.orgwrote: Hi Michael, You can already use names for the route, not only numerical IDs (without the need of defining).

Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] Feature request for OpenSIPS 1.9: support for macro definitions

Hi Ali, Added on the list http://www.opensips.org/Main/Ver190#toc9 with a quite high priority ;). Regards, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu OpenSIPS Founder and Developer http://www.opensips-solutions.com On 11/08/2012 07:06 PM, Ali Pey wrote: I second this as well. Named flags would make debugging and

Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] Feature request for OpenSIPS 1.9: support for macro definitions

Thank you Bogdan... On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 12:14 PM, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu bog...@opensips.orgwrote: ** Hi Ali, Added on the list http://www.opensips.org/Main/Ver190#toc9 with a quite high priority ;). Regards, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu OpenSIPS Founder and

[OpenSIPS-Users] Feature request: additional authorization conditions in auth_db

Hello all! I have a question about authorization: is there ability to specify additional conditions? For example, like it's done in postfix? We check only username and password in OpenSIPS, but there may be additional info, like status (active, suspended, blocked, etc...). So, if

Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] Feature request: additional authorization conditions in auth_db

On Tuesday 05 January 2010 12:59:31 Alexander wrote: Hello all! I have a question about authorization: is there ability to specify additional conditions? For example, like it's done in postfix? We check only username and password in OpenSIPS, but there may be additional info, like

Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] Feature request: additional authorization conditions in auth_db

Hi Alexander, auth_ module simply does only the digest authentication. Whatever additional check you may need can be done from the script, if auth is passed. if you need some extra info from the subscriber table, you can use the load_credentials param to fetch it in script. Regards,

Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] Feature request: additional authorization conditions in auth_db

Thank you very much, Bogdan! I've forgot about load_credentials :( Hi Alexander, auth_ module simply does only the digest authentication. Whatever additional check you may need can be done from the script, if auth is passed. if you need some extra info from the subscriber table, you

Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] Feature request: Loop detection

Hi Brett, This will be kind of pike but instead of using as input the source IP string, it should use a custom string you build form script, right ? this string will be a kind of key (logical one) to identify the loop. Regards, Bogdan Brett Nemeroff wrote: Hey All, I was wanting to submit a

Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] Feature request: Loop detection

Yeah, that's a great idea actually, I could just concatenate some PVs to form a key like $si-$rU. On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 8:53 AM, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu bog...@voice-system.ro wrote: Hi Brett, This will be kind of pike but instead of using as input the source IP string, it should use a custom

Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] Feature request: Loop detection

OK, let me see how difficult is to re-design the pike module, as so far, the way the internal data is kept is highly IP-format dependent. Regards, Bogdan Brett Nemeroff wrote: Yeah, that's a great idea actually, I could just concatenate some PVs to form a key like $si-$rU. On Mon, Jun 29,

Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] Feature request: Loop detection

Why is that? Does it provide rate-limiting for subnets of sending traffic as well? Seems like the function needs to be redone altogether with the whole tree business.. -Brett On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 12:02 PM, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu bog...@voice-system.ro wrote: OK, let me see how difficult is

Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] Feature request: Loop detection

the IPs are internally kept in a tree that assumes that the data is IP-only - each node can have maximum 256 sub-nodes, but with some twists I can do it more generic, to support any kind of data.. Regards, Bogdan Brett Nemeroff wrote: Why is that? Does it provide rate-limiting for subnets of

Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] Feature-request: AVPs for nat_traversal

Hi Dan, Dan Pascu wrote: On 10 Jun 2009, at 21:07, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote: Dan, what about this? this will accelerate the migration from nathelper to nat_tranversal module, what do you say? I can see the benefit of having the keepalive interval customizable per user, but I'm not

Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] Feature-request: AVPs for nat_traversal

On 11 Jun 2009, at 12:23, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote: Anyway, I'm open to patch submissions. But first let's see if these additions really serve real use cases that are not covered by the existing design, or just provide suboptimal solutions that could be achieved with the existing code.

Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] Feature-request: AVPs for nat_traversal

Dan Pascu wrote: On 11 Jun 2009, at 12:23, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote: Anyway, I'm open to patch submissions. But first let's see if these additions really serve real use cases that are not covered by the existing design, or just provide suboptimal solutions that could be achieved with the

Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] Feature-request: AVPs for nat_traversal

Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote: I agree with you - to be honest I'm using only SIP ping so should we obsolete the UDP ping :) ? I have no concerns regarding this. IMO the additional load does not really hurt small systems - and large systems should already be designed to scale out ;-)

Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] Feature-request: AVPs for nat_traversal

On 11 Jun 2009, at 14:13, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote: I explicitly did not implement UDP pings, because over 40% of the routers out there will not keep the NAT open if they do not receive something from inside the NAT. As a consequence UDP pings are useless with those devices and

Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] Feature-request: AVPs for nat_traversal

On 11 Jun 2009, at 14:46, Thomas Gelf wrote: As you asked for real-world example for the per-user-ping-type feature request: while preparing our new VoIP platform I've switched to nat_traversal and configured NOTIFY, as it seemed to be the more elegant variant. This went well, unless I've

Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] Feature-request: AVPs for nat_traversal

Dan Pascu wrote: Hmm. Up to now I haven't encountered any device that doesn't reply to a request. If it doesn't understand it, it should at least reply with Not supported. Having devices that completely ignore a request is bad for communication, because you cannot discern between the

Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] Feature-request: AVPs for nat_traversal

Migration from nathelper? What's this you say? :) Can you for us users out here explain the implication of a new nathelper? Is nat_traveral intended to replace nathelper? What's new? Am I jumping the gun asking these questions? :) Thanks! -Brett On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 1:07 PM, Bogdan-Andrei

Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] Feature-request: AVPs for nat_traversal

let's keep the guns away :D. There is an older plan (since almost 1 year) of refurbishing the NAT related traversal modules: nat_traversal module will be responsible for signalling part (ping + mangling) mediaproxy and nathelper (future rtpproxy) will offer the interfacing to the

Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] Feature-request: AVPs for nat_traversal

Hi Brett, I'm responding being just a user, so please don't trust my words too much ;-) Afaik nat_traversal is an approach to move keepalive methods to a single module, and let rtpproxy (currently: nathelper) and media- proxy do what there name says: being just an RTP (media) proxy. At the times

Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] Feature-request: AVPs for nat_traversal

I've overseen that you already replied... Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote: ... The idea is: 1) nat_traversal has more features on pinging area - can do pinging without registration, simply monitoring presence and call sessions 2) to avoid code duplicity between nathelper and mediaproxy

Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] Feature-request: AVPs for nat_traversal

Thomas Gelf wrote: I've overseen that you already replied... Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote: ... The idea is: 1) nat_traversal has more features on pinging area - can do pinging without registration, simply monitoring presence and call sessions 2) to avoid code duplicity between

Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] Feature-request: AVPs for nat_traversal

Dan, what about this? this will accelerate the migration from nathelper to nat_tranversal module, what do you say? As time as it is not technical nightmare (from implementation point of view), this feature make sense to me. Regards, Bogdan Thomas Gelf wrote: I would also like to take

Re: [OpenSIPS-Users] Feature-request: AVPs for nat_traversal

On 10 Jun 2009, at 21:07, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote: Dan, what about this? this will accelerate the migration from nathelper to nat_tranversal module, what do you say? I can see the benefit of having the keepalive interval customizable per user, but I'm not sure what's the advantage of

[OpenSIPS-Users] Feature-request: AVPs for nat_traversal

I would also like to take occasion to propose a new feature: adding a parameter named keepalive_interval_avp, allowing to set individual keepalive intervals for customers with special needs. Also keepalive_method_avp would be a useful addition. Both changes would probably require modifications to

[OpenSIPS-Users] feature request feedback

Hey All,I just had this revelation today about a potential feature and I wanted to run it by the group to see if there was any interest in it. I tried posting it to the tracker, but sf.net keeps failing (I'm getting server busy messages.. grumble..) So I had talked before about memcache families.