- FreeSWITCH-users - FreeSWITCH Mailing Lists

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

little problem with gateway registration
by Helmut Kuper 11 Feb '09

11 Feb '09

Hello, today I connected FS to my SIP-DDI SoftSwitch. It registered successfully, but not as expected at the register-proxy (sip2.ewetel.net) but at the proxy (proxy2.ewetel.net) My gateway config is this: <include> <gateway name="IPPBXSIPDDI">  <param name="username" value="ippbx"/>  <param name="realm" value="sip2.ewetel.net"/>  <param name="from-domain" value="sip2.ewetel.net"/>  <param name="password" value="XXXXX"/>  <param name="proxy" value="proxy2.ewetel.net"/>  <param name="register-proxy" value="sip2.ewetel.net"/>  <param name="expire-seconds" value="60"/>  <param name="retry-seconds" value="30"/> </gateway> </include> The corresponding register request generated by FS is this: REGISTER sip:proxy2.ewetel.net;transport=udp SIP/2.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 85.16.246.22;branch=z9hG4bK2FNpmSQHpZtye Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 85.16.246.6:5070;received=85.16.246.6;rport=5070;branch=z9hG4bK2FNpmSQHpZtye Max-Forwards: 69 From: <sip:ippbx@sip2.ewetel.net;transport=udp>;tag=QrFtyDUrpg94N To: <sip:ippbx@sip2.ewetel.net;transport=udp> Call-ID: 8bd8f32c-f759-11dd-bb38-778d64a5265f CSeq: 111011668 REGISTER Contact: <sip:gw+IPPBXSIPDDI@85.16.246.6:5070;transport=udp> Expires: 60 User-Agent: FreeSWITCH-mod_sofia/1.0.trunk-11698M Allow: INVITE, ACK, BYE, CANCEL, OPTIONS, PRACK, MESSAGE, SUBSCRIBE, NOTIFY, REFER, UPDATE, REGISTER, INFO Supported: timer, precondition, path, replaces Authorization: Digest username="ippbx", realm="sip2.ewetel.net", nonce="4991527400000e269de527c4c699b9466bbf1e015cd0532c", cnonce="HE1PznH9Eiyb4QAUT+bjMA", algorithm=MD5, uri="sip:proxy2.ewetel.net;transport=udp", response="b5af17310919ec6b8f82acd4c89ffb9e", qop=auth, nc=00000001 Content-Length: 0 Shouldn't it register to register-proxy when it is given? regards Helmut

2 2

Dynamic Dialplan
by Doug Blacksone 11 Feb '09

11 Feb '09

Hi, Right now, I am working on getting freeswitch configured for our call-center with more than 1000 agents. There are several areas where we need the dialplan to be configurable based on some user detail in the database. Therefore, the dialplan needs to be some-what dynamic based-on inputs from the database. I would like to know from other implementation as to the most scalable way of doing high performance dynamic dialplan that is super scalable. There are three ways I can think of: 1. Static dialplan using customized freeswitch mod to access postgres for data pros: best performance cons: harder to program 2. Static dialplan using lua to access postgres for data pros: easy to program, maybe-performance is better than curl cons: need to search through all the extensions to find one dialplan, performance is slower than the first one. 3. curl-based dialplan using Java Servlet and HTTP pros: easy to program, freeswitch only gets one extension and no extension search cons: performance is slow than the other two Is this a correct analysis? If from a pure performance's perspective, how much performance can a customized mod gains in comparison to lua? For a production system that needs to be highly scalable, what do you recommend? Thank you very much for any input to our critical design decision. Doug

13 18

dialplan question
by Jonathan Creasy 11 Feb '09

11 Feb '09

I'm trying to setup an extension to send a call to a user as a DID number not their user. I want to be able to do one of two things: One, I want the Request URI to match the contact from their REGISTER and To header to be "+1NXXNXXXXXX@contactdomain" Two, I want to make both the Request URI and the To header be "+1NXXNXXXXXX@contactdomain". I looked at "force-user" but that gives me the ability to do one DID to a user (by forcing the user to the DID). So, how do I need to setup the call for these scenarios?

1 0

High CPU load after starting
by Public Dump 10 Feb '09

10 Feb '09

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

3 3

dialplan question
by Jonathan Creasy 10 Feb '09

10 Feb '09

I'm trying to setup a dialstring to send a call to a user as a DID number not their user. I want to be able to do one of two things: One, I want the Request URI to match the contact from their REGISTER and To header to be "+1NXXNXXXXXX@contactdomain" Two, I want to make both the Request URI and the To header be "+1NXXNXXXXXX@contactdomain". I looked at "force-user" but that gives me the ability to do one DID to a user (by forcing the user to the DID). So, how do I need to setup the call for these scenarios?

1 0

FreeSWITCH uclibc segfault
by Kristian Kielhofner 10 Feb '09

10 Feb '09

I don't think this is worth filing a bug for (yet)... FS rev 11655 segfaults with AstLinux (uClibc). Backtrace: http://astbuild.star2star.com/astlinux-freeswitch-segfault.txt I'm sorry it doesn't have all the symbols... Everything except FS is stripped. Configure options: http://astlinux.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/astlinux/branches/astlinux-frees… FreeSWITCH compiles cleanly. Are there any known issues with uclibc (couldn't find anything on Jira) or did I do something stupid? Thanks! -- Kristian Kielhofner http://blog.krisk.org http://www.submityoursip.com http://www.astlinux.org http://www.star2star.com

5 9

DTMF not being recognised
by Nik Middleton 10 Feb '09

10 Feb '09

Hi Guys, I have an IVR that's working fine on internal extensions, but when a call is via my sip GW, they're not being trapped. I have tried the following in the gw profile <param name="dtmf-type" value="rfc2833"/> <param name="rfc2833-pt" value="101"/> <param name="pass-rfc2833" value="false"/ I should add that this sip provider works fine with asterisk. Anyone any ideas? Regards

7 13

Recording play end of sound file again
by Blake France 10 Feb '09

10 Feb '09

Whenever I try to record and IVR or Voicemail Greeting, it will record and playback, but playback does something like this. "Please leave a message" ... "Message" It plays the end of the sound file AGAIN after playing the sound file. I've tried leaving extra time before and after speaking, but it still does this. Anyone ran into this issue?

3 4