February 2009 - FreeSWITCH-users - FreeSWITCH Mailing Lists

How i can trigger action or application in case of sip 302 received
by Tchavdar Paskov 12 Feb '09

12 Feb '09

Hi, Everybody i was wondering if anybody can give me a hint on how i can set a condition/action in dial plan in case of SIP 302 being received. Regards Chav

2 3

Re: [Freeswitch-users] Freeswitch-users Digest, Vol 32, Issue 98
by Public Dump 11 Feb '09

11 Feb '09

> Message: 3 > Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 15:16:16 -0600 > From: Brian West <brian(a)freeswitch.org> > Subject: Re: [Freeswitch-users] High CPU load after starting > To: freeswitch-users(a)lists.freeswitch.org > Message-ID: <1A18CBF4-81F9-4E57-AF9D-54B6103B292B(a)freeswitch.org> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Downloaded tarball, performed SVN update. Nothing special, just building it right out of the box. Already tired disabling all modules and loading all cores. Problem persists. What is really striking, is that the load is all privileged time (kernel), consumes exactly 50% of one core and the core in question is always the same one. The Server is running Hyper-V (Host OS) but this also means it is running under the control of the hypervisor. > Are you sure you rebuilt it clean? Are you doing anything special? > Changing any configs? > > /b >

2 1

does anyone have a working FS / aastra config
by John Hyde 11 Feb '09

11 Feb '09

I am having problems getting an Aastra 57i to make calls through FS. the phone registers fine, but all calls fail. If i use xlite or a nokia sip phone, i have no problems. Here is a packet capture of an attempted call: http://pastebin.freeswitch.org/7039 notice packet 9, it should have been a SIP INVITE, but it turned out to be a Fragmented IP protocol The phone and FS are both on the same lan subnet, and the phone connects fine with an asterisk server on the same subnet. Is there a known config for aastra phones that I can reference, or does anyone know why I am having this issue? -- john

1 1

Re: [Freeswitch-users] Compile Freeswitch 64bit for Windows
by Public Dump 11 Feb '09

11 Feb '09

For compiling x64 code you shouldn't need a 64bit system, but you couldn't run it of course. I don't have a 64 bit windows box/os to get this working. Someone with access to such a box would have to set this up and submit a patch. Mike

1 0

Re: [Freeswitch-users] High CPU load after starting
by Public Dump 11 Feb '09

11 Feb '09

After reading you suggestions I deployed the version from SVN today, the problem persists. Regards Von: Public Dump Gesendet: Dienstag, 10. Februar 2009 19:42 An: 'freeswitch-users(a)lists.freeswitch.org' Betreff: High CPU load after starting After starting FreeSwitch (1.0.2) on a 4 core server running Windows Server 2008, the CPU load (privileged time/kernel) for one of the cores goes to 50% and stays there. Stoping FreeSwitch stops the load. I have tried to disable all modules but the problem persists. Has anybody seen this problem, can it be fixed ? regards

2 1

Originate call from one ext to another from php?
by Chris Elam 11 Feb '09

11 Feb '09

Hi all, I¹m just starting playing around with FS and I¹ve searched for the answer to what I think is an easy question but I can¹t find it. I have FS running, 2 X-lite clients on 2 different computers connected using the preconfigured 1000 and 1001 extenstions. Both can call each other and everything is fine. I¹m trying to figure out though how to originate the call from 1000 to 1001 via php. I¹m using this script: http://wiki.freeswitch.org/wiki/PHP_Event_Socket Except that I¹ve changed this line: $cmd = "api help"; To: $cmd = "api originate sofia/mydomain.com/1000@192.168.15.50 &bridge(sofia/mydomain.com/1001(a)192.168.15.50)"; The result I get is : -ERR DESTINATION_OUT_OF_ORDER PS, I literally have ³mydomain.com² in there as it looks like from the wiki this is the default. Any help is much appreciated, thanks all. This email may contain confidential information and is solely for the use of the intended recipient. Any review, distribution, disclosure or other use of this information by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message from your system.

2 5

Compile Freeswitch 64bit for Windows
by Public Dump 11 Feb '09

11 Feb '09

... did anybody succeed with this ? The solution for VS2008 does not seem to have a valid 64bit configuration. Regards

2 1

DTMF: Mute sound for the other side?
by Dennis 11 Feb '09

11 Feb '09

hi, i am having a small problem with the dtmf-sounds... if i press a dtmf digit while i am bridged with another leg, the other side will hear the dtmf sound. this is very annoying and even worse in a conference, when multiple people can press dtmf digits (for (un-)muting themselves or using other functions). is there a way, to NOT let the other side hear the dtmf sound (but of course still make fs listening to it)? thanks for the help dennis

4 9

Strange error message
by Nik Middleton 11 Feb '09

11 Feb '09

Hi Guys, I'm baffled by this error. I'm updating the db on call hang-up If I comment out curs:close() no error, but I'm concerned about memory leaks. Can anyone tell me what FS is complaining about? The db gets updated in both cases Regards require "luasql.mysql" function myHangupHook(s, status, arg) freeswitch.consoleLog("info", " : They hung up on US!!!\n"); env = assert (luasql.mysql()) con = assert (env:connect("xxxxl","xxxxxxxxx","pass","192.168.3.205")) curs = assert (con:execute"UPDATE callers SET lastcall = 'BOB' WHERE id = 33292") curs:close() con:close() env:close() freeswitch.consoleLog("NOTICE", "myHangupHook: " .. status .. "\n"); --error() end 2009-02-10 20:53:20 [INFO] switch_cpp.cpp:1086 console_log() : They hung up on US!!! 2009-02-10 20:53:20 [ERR] mod_lua.cpp:176 lua_parse_and_execute() /usr/local/freeswitch/scripts/helloworld.lua:50: attempt to index global 'curs' (a number value) stack traceback: /usr/local/freeswitch/scripts/helloworld.lua:50: in function </usr/local/freeswitch/scripts/helloworld.lua:45> [C]: in function 'hangup' /usr/local/freeswitch/scripts/helloworld.lua:70: in main chunk 2009-02-10 20:53:20 [NOTICE] switch_core_session.c:957 switch_core_session_thread() Session 63 (sofia/internal/1001(a)192.168.3.206) Ended

2 3

TODAY/URGENT: Stop IETF Enactment of Patented Standard for TLS
by EdPimentl 11 Feb '09

11 Feb '09

Have you seen this? and how will impact FS in the future? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >From Seth: (Urgent. Send your note TODAY and CONFIRM the automatic reply from IETF. You can cc campaigns(a)fsf.org . Three links below, FSF's action page, Glyn Moody's blog, and the list announcement for TLS-AUTHZ at IETF. -- Seth) > http://www.fsf.org/news/reoppose-tls-authz-standard Send comments opposing TLS-authz standard by February 11 Last January, the Free Software Foundation issued an alert to efforts at the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) to sneak a patent-encumbered standard for "TLS authorization" through a back-door approval process that was referenced as "experimental" or "informational" (http://www.fsf.org/news/reoppose-tls-authz-standard/newsitem_view) The many comments sent to IETF at that time alerted committee members to this attempt and successfully prevented the standard gaining approval. Unfortunately, attempts to push through this standard have been renewed and become more of a threat. The proposal now at the IETF has a changed status from "experimental" to "proposed standard". The FSF is again issuing an alert and request for comments to be sent urgently and prior to the February 11 deadline to ietf(a)ietf.org. Please include us in your message by a CC to campaigns(a)fsf.org. You should also expect an automated reply from ietf(a)ietf.org, which you will need to answer to confirm your original message. That patent in question is claimed by RedPhone Security (https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1026/) RedPhone has given a license to anyone who implements the protocol, but they still threaten to sue anyone that uses it. If our voice is strong enough, the IETF will not approve this standard on any level unless the patent threat is removed entirely with a royalty-free license for all users. Further background for your comment See the IETF summary: > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg05617.html Much of the communication on the Internet happens between computers according to standards that define common languages. If we are going to live in a free world using free software, our software must be allowed to speak these languages. Unfortunately, discussions about possible new standards are tempting opportunities for people who would prefer to profit by extending proprietary control over our communities. If someone holds a software patent on a technique that a programmer or user has to use in order to make use of a standard, then no one is free without getting permission from and paying the patent holder (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/fighting-software-patents.html) If we are not careful, standards can become major barriers to computer users having and exercising their freedom. We depend on organizations like the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) to evaluate new proposals for standards and make sure that they are not encumbered by patents or any other sort of restriction that would prevent free software users and programmers from participating in the world they define. In February 2006, a standard for "TLS authorization" was introduced in the IETF for consideration (http://tools.ietf.org/wg/tls/draft-housley-tls-authz-extns-07.txt) Very late in the discussion, a company called RedPhone Security disclosed (this disclosure has subsequently been unpublished from the IETF website) that they applied for a patent which would need to be licensed to anyone wanting to practice the standard (https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/833/) After this disclosure, the proposal was rejected. Despite claims that RedPhone have offered a license for implementation of this protocol, users of this protocol would still be threatened by the patent. The IETF should continue to oppose this standard until RedPhone provide a royalty-free license for all users. Media Contacts Peter T. Brown Executive Director Free Software Foundation (617)542-5942 campaigns(a)fsf.org --- > http://www.computerworlduk.com/community/blogs/index.cfm?blogid=14&entryid=… Help Fight This Patent-Encumbered IETF Standard February 10, 2009 Posted by: Glyn Moody I've written numerous times about the importance of writing to governments about their hare-brained schemes, but this one is rather different. In this case, it's the normally sane Internet Engineering Task Force that wants to do something really daft. The FSF explains: Last January, the Free Software Foundation issued an alert to efforts at the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) to sneak a patent-encumbered standard for "TLS authorization" through a back-door approval process that was referenced as "experimental" or "informational". The many comments sent to IETF at that time alerted committee members to this attempt and successfully prevented the standard gaining approval. Unfortunately, attempts to push through this standard have been renewed and become more of a threat. The proposal now at the IETF has a changed status from "experimental" to "proposed standard". This is a throwback to the bad old days of sneaking patents into nominal standards. It is yet another reason why such patents should not be given in the first place. But until such time as the patent offices around the world come to their senses, the only option is to fight patent-encumbered standards on an individual basis. Here are the details for doing so: The FSF is again issuing an alert and request for comments to be sent urgently and prior to the February 11 deadline to ietf(a)ietf.org. Please include us in your message by a CC to campaigns(a)fsf.org. You should also expect an automated reply from ietf(a)ietf.org, which you will need to answer to confirm your original message. Here's what I've sent: I am writing to ask you not to approve the proposed patent-encumbered standard for TLS authorisation. To do so would fly in the face of the IETF's fundamental commitment to openness. It would weaken not just the standard itself, but the IETF's authority in this sphere. --- > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg05617.html Fourth Last Call: draft-housley-tls-authz-extns * To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce at ietf.org> * Subject: Fourth Last Call: draft-housley-tls-authz-extns * From: The IESG <iesg-secretary at ietf.org> * Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 08:18:20 -0800 (PST) * List-archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/ietf-announce> * Reply-to: ietf at ietf.org On June 27, 2006, the IESG approved "Transport Layer Security (TLS) Authorization Extensions," (draft-housley-tls-authz-extns) as a proposed standard. On November 29, 2006, Redphone Security (with whom Mark Brown, a co-author of the draft is affiliated) filed IETF IPR disclosure 767. Because of the timing of the IPR Disclosure, the IESG withdrew its approval of draft-housley-tls-authz-extns. A second IETF Last Call was initiated to determine whether the IETF community still had consensus to publish draft-housley-tls-authz-extns as a proposed standard given the IPR claimed. Consensus to publish as a standards track document was not demonstrated, and the document was withdrawn from IESG consideration. A third IETF Last Call was initiated to determine whether the IETF community had consensus to publish draft-housley-tls-authz-extns as an experimental track RFC with knowledge of the IPR disclosure from Redphone Security. Consensus to publish as experimental was not demonstrated; a substantial segment of the community objected to publication on any track in light of the IPR terms. Since the third Last Call, RedPhone Security filed IETF IPR disclosure 1026. This disclosure statement asserts in part that "the techniques for sending and receiving authorizations defined in TLS Authorizations Extensions (version draft-housley-tls-authz-extns-07.txt) do not infringe upon RedPhone Security's intellectual property rights". The full text of IPR disclosure 1026 is available at: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1026/ This Last Call is intended to determine whether the IETF community had consensus to publish draft-housley-tls-authz-extns as a proposed standard given IPR Disclosure 1026. The IESG is considering approving this draft as a standards track RFC. The IESG solicits final comments on whether the IETF community has consensus to publish draft-housley-tls-authz-extns as a proposed standard. Comments can be sent to ietf at ietf.org or exceptionally to iesg at ietf.org. Comments should be sent by 2009-02-11. A URL of this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-housley-tls-authz-extns-07.txt _______________________________________________ IETF-Announce mailing list IETF-Announce at ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce

1 0