[Asterisk-Dev] Help required follow me feature
Hemant Kumar
hemant at versaplanet.com
Sun Jul 25 23:34:14 MST 2004
rtfm
----- Original Message -----
From: "sthiti" <sthiti at adyasystems.com>
To: <asterisk-dev at lists.digium.com>
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2004 9:54 AM
Subject: [Asterisk-Dev] Help required follow me feature
> HI,
>
> Please anyone help me to configure the follow me feature?
>
> Sthiti Ranjan Sarangi
> Adyasystems & Software Pvt. Ltd
> New Delhi
> India
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asterisk-dev-admin at lists.digium.com
> [mailto:asterisk-dev-admin at lists.digium.com] On Behalf Of
> asterisk-dev-request at lists.digium.com
> Sent: Friday, July 23, 2004 4:34 AM
> To: asterisk-dev at lists.digium.com
> Subject: Asterisk-Dev digest, Vol 1 #784 - 8 msgs
>
>
> Send Asterisk-Dev mailing list submissions to
> asterisk-dev at lists.digium.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> asterisk-dev-request at lists.digium.com
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> asterisk-dev-admin at lists.digium.com
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than
> "Re: Contents of Asterisk-Dev digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Authorization header not formatted properly when REGISTER msg is
> challenged (algorithm=MD5) (Michael Lunsford)
> 2. RE: Re: Asterisk Book Reviewer (asterisk at packtpub.com)
> 3. RE: Re: Asterisk Book Reviewer (asterisk at packtpub.com)
> 4. Re: Authorization header not formatted properly when
> REGISTER msg is challenged (algorithm=MD5) (Olle E. Johansson)
> 5. Re: UK Caller ID patch and new CVS (dking at pimpsoft.com)
> 6. RE: UK Caller ID patch and new CVS (dking at pimpsoft.com)
> 7. Re: Authorization header not formatted properly when REGISTER msg
> is challenged (algorithm=MD5) (Rob Gagnon)
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 15:55:25 -0400
> From: "Michael Lunsford" <michael.lunsford at cbeyond.net>
> To: <asterisk-dev at lists.digium.com>
> Subject: [Asterisk-Dev] Authorization header not formatted properly when
> REGISTER msg is challenged (algorithm=MD5)
> Reply-To: asterisk-dev at lists.digium.com
>
> I am new to this forum and am looking for some help on an issue I'm
> having with the Asterisk. The company I work for has Cisco BTS 10200s
> deployed in several Tier 1 cities through the US with over 13,000
> customers to date. Our engineering team is performing interoperability
> testing between the Asterisk and the Cisco's BTS 10200 softswitch and
> have found an issue.
>
> With our switch configured to authorize the registration from Asterisk,
> the Asterisks responds to the challenge (401 Unauthorized) with an error
> in the REGISTER message. The authorization header in the REGISTER msg
> from the Asterisk contains 'algorithm=3D"MD5"'. The quote around the MD5
> are not per spec in RFC 2617 3.2.1
> (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2617.txt). Section 3.2.2 "The Authorization
> Request Header" describes the response a User Agent takes when
> challenged with a "401 Unauthorized". It refers section 3.2.1 "The
> WWW-Authenticate Response Header" for the framework of the construction
> of the message. Referring to 3.2.1, we see that everything that is
> supposed to be quoted in the message states either "quoted-string" or
> has <"> to indicate that the quotes are supposed to be in the message.
> The quotes around the MD5 are not to be included in the message.
>
> In the source, I removed the quotes so that the authorization header in
> the REGISTER message now read 'algorithm=3DMD5' instead of
> 'algorithm=3D"MD5"'. The BTS 10200 now accepts the message and sends a =
> 200 OK.
>
> Please let me know your thoughts. I am registered to the bug reporting
> site but wanted to query and see if others were in agreement with my
> interpretation of the spec.
>
> Thanks,
> Michael
>
> Immediately below is the SIP debug of the successful call sequence with
> the quotes removed around MD5. Below that is the unsucessful
> registration when the quotes are sent.
>
> #############################################################
> SIP debug for successful call registration after I have removed the
> quotes from around the MD5 in the authorization header.
>
> *CLI> sip reload
> Reloading SIP
> =3D=3D Parsing '/etc/asterisk/sip.conf': Found
> 11 headers, 0 lines
> Reliably Transmitting:
> REGISTER sip:sia-lab2ca102.lab2.cbeyond.net SIP/2.0
> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 90.1.1.202:5060;branch=3Dz9hG4bK15eef8b1
> From: <sip:6783979900 at sia-lab2ca102.lab2.cbeyond.net>;tag=3Das64e78660
> To: <sip:6783979900 at sia-lab2ca102.lab2.cbeyond.net>
> Call-ID: 6f264ca6263293f5400ccaa527dce06d at 90.1.1.202
> CSeq: 102 REGISTER
> User-Agent: Asterisk PBX
> Expires: 3600
> Contact: <sip:4000 at 90.1.1.202>
> Event: registration
> Content-Length: 0
>
> (no NAT) to 90.0.4.12:5060
>
>
> Sip read:
> SIP/2.0 401 Unauthorized
> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
> 90.1.1.202:5060;branch=3Dz9hG4bK15eef8b1;received=3D90.1.1.202
> From: <sip:6783979900 at sia-lab2ca102.lab2.cbeyond.net>;tag=3Das64e78660
> To:
> <sip:6783979900 at sia-lab2ca102.lab2.cbeyond.net>;tag=3D1_1102_t9670_537e
> Call-ID: 6f264ca6263293f5400ccaa527dce06d at 90.1.1.202
> CSeq: 102 REGISTER
> WWW-Authenticate: Digest realm=3D"customer10.lab2.cbeyond.net",
> nonce=3D"6e2db394cb0ab7851d44d5472b1dac27", algorithm=3DMD5, =
> qop=3D"auth"
> Content-Length: 0
>
>
> 8 headers, 0 lines
> 12 headers, 0 lines
> Reliably Transmitting:
> REGISTER sip:sia-lab2ca102.lab2.cbeyond.net SIP/2.0
> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 90.1.1.202:5060;branch=3Dz9hG4bK67fcb845
> From: <sip:6783979900 at sia-lab2ca102.lab2.cbeyond.net>;tag=3Das64e78660
> To: <sip:6783979900 at sia-lab2ca102.lab2.cbeyond.net>
> Call-ID: 6f264ca6263293f5400ccaa527dce06d at 90.1.1.202
> CSeq: 103 REGISTER
> User-Agent: Asterisk PBX
> Authorization: Digest username=3D"6783979900",
> realm=3D"customer10.lab2.cbeyond.net", algorithm=3DMD5,
> uri=3D"sip:sia-lab2ca102.lab2.cbeyond.net",
> nonce=3D"6e2db394cb0ab7851d44d5472b1dac27",
> response=3D"549eb04688dcea6195e24fb1de1d41d0", opaque=3D"", =
> qop=3D"auth", cnonce=3D"795cdc3e", nc=3D00000001
> Expires: 3600
> Contact: <sip:4000 at 90.1.1.202>
> Event: registration
> Content-Length: 0
>
> (no NAT) to 90.0.4.12:5060
>
>
> Sip read:
> SIP/2.0 200 OK
> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
> 90.1.1.202:5060;branch=3Dz9hG4bK67fcb845;received=3D90.1.1.202
> From: <sip:6783979900 at sia-lab2ca102.lab2.cbeyond.net>;tag=3Das64e78660
> To:
> <sip:6783979900 at sia-lab2ca102.lab2.cbeyond.net>;tag=3D1_1102_t9670_537e
> Call-ID: 6f264ca6263293f5400ccaa527dce06d at 90.1.1.202
> CSeq: 103 REGISTER
> Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 19:41:54 GMT
> Contact: <sip:4000 at 90.1.1.20>;expires=3D1226,
> <sip:4000 at 90.1.1.202>;expires=3D3600
> Authentication-Info: qop=3D"auth",
> rspauth=3D"8369aa16a70f6bef295a0366fcd3b2de", cnonce=3D"795cdc3e",
> nc=3D00000001
> Content-Length: 0
>
>
> 10 headers, 0 lines
>
>
> ####################################################
> Below is sip debug for unsuccessful registration when Asterisk sends
> 'algorithm=3D"MD5"'
>
>
> *CLI> sip reload
> Reloading SIP
> =3D=3D Parsing '/etc/asterisk/sip.conf': Found
> 11 headers, 0 lines
> Reliably Transmitting:
> REGISTER sip:sia-lab2ca102.lab2.cbeyond.net SIP/2.0
> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 90.1.1.202:5060;branch=3Dz9hG4bK4269b1ab
> From: <sip:6783979900 at sia-lab2ca102.lab2.cbeyond.net>;tag=3Das034fa66d
> To: <sip:6783979900 at sia-lab2ca102.lab2.cbeyond.net>
> Call-ID: 56ecb3a6001b35192b5ee19d4138fe81 at 90.1.1.202
> CSeq: 102 REGISTER
> User-Agent: Asterisk PBX
> Expires: 3600
> Contact: <sip:4000 at 90.1.1.202>
> Event: registration
> Content-Length: 0
>
> (no NAT) to 90.0.4.12:5060
>
>
> Sip read:
> SIP/2.0 401 Unauthorized
> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
> 90.1.1.202:5060;branch=3Dz9hG4bK4269b1ab;received=3D90.1.1.202
> From: <sip:6783979900 at sia-lab2ca102.lab2.cbeyond.net>;tag=3Das034fa66d
> To:
> <sip:6783979900 at sia-lab2ca102.lab2.cbeyond.net>;tag=3D1_1102_t9680_1y9b
> Call-ID: 56ecb3a6001b35192b5ee19d4138fe81 at 90.1.1.202
> CSeq: 102 REGISTER
> WWW-Authenticate: Digest realm=3D"customer10.lab2.cbeyond.net",
> nonce=3D"f6576068a2173d58e60f282deb3d3bd5", algorithm=3DMD5, =
> qop=3D"auth"
> Content-Length: 0
>
>
> 8 headers, 0 lines
> 12 headers, 0 lines
> Reliably Transmitting:
> REGISTER sip:sia-lab2ca102.lab2.cbeyond.net SIP/2.0
> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 90.1.1.202:5060;branch=3Dz9hG4bK7e9b8de5
> From: <sip:6783979900 at sia-lab2ca102.lab2.cbeyond.net>;tag=3Das034fa66d
> To: <sip:6783979900 at sia-lab2ca102.lab2.cbeyond.net>
> Call-ID: 56ecb3a6001b35192b5ee19d4138fe81 at 90.1.1.202
> CSeq: 103 REGISTER
> User-Agent: Asterisk PBX
> Authorization: Digest username=3D"6783979900",
> realm=3D"customer10.lab2.cbeyond.net", algorithm=3D"MD5",
> uri=3D"sip:sia-lab2ca102.lab2.cbeyond.net",
> nonce=3D"f6576068a2173d58e60f282deb3d3bd5",
> response=3D"5840d28faf5e5ed95d0fceda4711bd7b", opaque=3D"", =
> qop=3D"auth", cnonce=3D"655123e8", nc=3D00000001
> Expires: 3600
> Contact: <sip:4000 at 90.1.1.202>
> Event: registration
> Content-Length: 0
>
> (no NAT) to 90.0.4.12:5060
>
>
> Sip read:
> SIP/2.0 400 Bad Request
> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
> 90.1.1.202:5060;branch=3Dz9hG4bK7e9b8de5;received=3D90.1.1.202
> From: <sip:6783979900 at sia-lab2ca102.lab2.cbeyond.net>;tag=3Das034fa66d
> To: <sip:6783979900 at sia-lab2ca102.lab2.cbeyond.net>
> Call-ID: 56ecb3a6001b35192b5ee19d4138fe81 at 90.1.1.202
> CSeq: 103 REGISTER
> Content-Length: 0
>
>
> 7 headers, 0 lines
> -- Got SIP response 400 "Bad Request" back from 90.0.4.12 Destroying
> call '56ecb3a6001b35192b5ee19d4138fe81 at 90.1.1.202'
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 21:47:19 +0100 (BST)
> Subject: RE: [Asterisk-Dev] Re: Asterisk Book Reviewer
> From: asterisk at packtpub.com
> To: asterisk-dev at lists.digium.com
> Reply-To: asterisk-dev at lists.digium.com
>
> I explained what roles David Maclean and I had at PI, and the
> authorities those roles had, because most of those who read previous
> messages did not know that, as was clear from one of the replies. I
> reported facts. What you make of them is up to you. I am not going to
> argue with anyone the conclusions they draw from those facts.
>
> I contacted a number of people in the Asterisk community recently and in
> the past about our Asterisk book. All of them were contacted using my
> email address. I am using asterisk at packtpub.com because one of our
> public email addresses has already received an abusive message triggered
> by earlier messages that were posted on this list. I am not keen on
> getting more of these sent to my email address. Using special email
> addresses for public forums is a common and effective method to control
> spam. If you want to make even this practice proof of ill intention,
> then I have nothing more to say to convince you otherwise. Again, I did
> not post to this list to discuss conclusions and manipulate
> interpretations, but to respond to untrue claims.
>
> I posted to this forum because one of the people that I contacted about
> our Asterisk book chose instead of checking with me first the claims he
> read in a blog article to post the link to the article to the list. I
> asked that person to post my reply to him to this forum on my behalf,
> but he suggested that I should do that. I am not an Asterisk developer,
> and I did not want to have to subscribe to the list to send messages
> that are clearly not what this forum was designed for.
>
> I hope that this is my last message to this forum about this subject. My
> intention was to respond to untrue allegations by stating facts, and I
> have done that. I will not take part in discussing what people make of
> those facts. The only thing that could force me to write again about
> this issue is posting serious and misleading allegations that I have not
> already addressed. I sincerely hope that I will not have to do that.
>
> If anyone is interested in asking me about anything, they are welcome to
> write to me at asterisk-dev at lists.digium.com. I will try my best to
> answer all questions, and I will use my other email address in doing so.
>
> My apologies for those who had no interest in my messages, and my thanks
> to those who read them.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Louay
>
>
>
>
> > It doesn't matter who or what connection he has with that company. The
>
> > fact of the matter is he was directly linked with a company that
> > cheated people out of money and is thus guilty by association. In the
> > same way you can not prove outright that we can not prove he is
> > responsible for this you can not prove that you are not.
> >
> > The only way to get people to trust anyone with knowledge of this is
> > for the parent company to do the right thing, anything else can only
> > be seen as a attempt to get good public relations, just like how your
> > company set up a email address just for contacting this list; if you
> > really wanted to do the right thing and be in good with the public you
>
> > would not be actively trying to circumvent outside communication, for
> > example.
> >
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 22:10:23 +0100 (BST)
> Subject: RE: [Asterisk-Dev] Re: Asterisk Book Reviewer
> From: asterisk at packtpub.com
> To: asterisk-dev at lists.digium.com
> Reply-To: asterisk-dev at lists.digium.com
>
> I meant to say people can contact me at asterisk at packtpub.com, not
> asterisk-dev at lists.digium.com. My apology.
>
>
> Louay
>
> > I explained what roles David Maclean and I had at PI, and the
> > authorities those roles had, because most of those who read previous
> > messages did not know that, as was clear from one of the replies. I
> > reported facts. What you make of them is up to you. I am not going to
> > argue with anyone the conclusions they draw from those facts.
> >
> > I contacted a number of people in the Asterisk community recently and
> > in the past about our Asterisk book. All of them were contacted using
> > my email address. I am using asterisk at packtpub.com because one of our
> > public email addresses has already received an abusive message
> > triggered by earlier messages that were posted on this list. I am not
> > keen on getting more of these sent to my email address. Using special
> > email addresses for public forums is a common and effective method to
> > control spam. If you want to make even this practice proof of ill
> > intention, then I have nothing more to say to convince you otherwise.
> > Again, I did not post to this list to discuss conclusions and
> > manipulate interpretations, but to respond to untrue claims.
> >
> > I posted to this forum because one of the people that I contacted
> > about our Asterisk book chose instead of checking with me first the
> > claims he read in a blog article to post the link to the article to
> > the list. I asked that person to post my reply to him to this forum on
>
> > my behalf, but he suggested that I should do that. I am not an
> > Asterisk developer, and I did not want to have to subscribe to the
> > list to send messages that are clearly not what this forum was
> > designed for.
> >
> > I hope that this is my last message to this forum about this subject.
> > My intention was to respond to untrue allegations by stating facts,
> > and I have done that. I will not take part in discussing what people
> > make of those facts. The only thing that could force me to write again
>
> > about this issue is posting serious and misleading allegations that I
> > have not already addressed. I sincerely hope that I will not have to
> > do that.
> >
> > If anyone is interested in asking me about anything, they are welcome
> > to write to me at asterisk-dev at lists.digium.com. I will try my best to
>
> > answer all questions, and I will use my other email address in doing
> > so.
> >
> > My apologies for those who had no interest in my messages, and my
> > thanks to those who read them.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Louay
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> It doesn't matter who or what connection he has with that company.
> >> The fact of the matter is he was directly linked with a company that
> >> cheated people out of money and is thus guilty by association. In the
>
> >> same way you can not prove outright that we can not prove he is
> >> responsible for this you can not prove that you are not.
> >>
> >> The only way to get people to trust anyone with knowledge of this is
> >> for the parent company to do the right thing, anything else can only
> >> be seen as a attempt to get good public relations, just like how your
>
> >> company set up a email address just for contacting this list; if you
> >> really wanted to
> >> do the right thing and be in good with the public you would not be
> >> actively trying to circumvent outside communication, for example.
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 23:23:59 +0200
> From: "Olle E. Johansson" <oej at edvina.net>
> Organization: Edvina AB
> To: asterisk-dev at lists.digium.com
> Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Dev] Authorization header not formatted properly
> when REGISTER msg is challenged (algorithm=MD5)
> Reply-To: asterisk-dev at lists.digium.com
>
> Michael Lunsford wrote:
>
> > I am new to this forum and am looking for some help on an issue I'm
> > having with the Asterisk. The company I work for has Cisco BTS 10200s
> > deployed in several Tier 1 cities through the US with over 13,000
> > customers to date. Our engineering team is performing interoperability
>
> > testing between the Asterisk and the Cisco's BTS 10200 softswitch and
> > have found an issue.
> >
> > With our switch configured to authorize the registration from
> > Asterisk, the Asterisks responds to the challenge (401 Unauthorized)
> > with an error in the REGISTER message. The authorization header in the
>
> > REGISTER msg from the Asterisk contains 'algorithm="MD5"'. The quote
> > around the MD5 are not per spec in RFC 2617 3.2.1
> > (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2617.txt). Section 3.2.2 "The
> > Authorization Request Header" describes the response a User Agent
> > takes when challenged with a "401 Unauthorized". It refers section
> > 3.2.1 "The WWW-Authenticate Response Header" for the framework of the
> > construction of the message. Referring to 3.2.1, we see that
> > everything that is supposed to be quoted in the message states either
> > "quoted-string" or has <"> to indicate that the quotes are supposed to
>
> > be in the message. The quotes around the MD5 are not to be included in
>
> > the message.
> >
> > In the source, I removed the quotes so that the authorization header
> > in the REGISTER message now read 'algorithm=MD5' instead of
> > 'algorithm="MD5"'. The BTS 10200 now accepts the message and sends a
> > 200 OK.
> >
> You are right. This needs to be changed. Open a bug in bugs.digium.com
> RFC3261 examples clearly have algorithm=MD5 without quotes.
>
> /Olle
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 5
> From: dking at pimpsoft.com
> Organization: pimpsoft.com
> To: asterisk-dev at lists.digium.com
> Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 14:49:43 -0700
> Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Dev] UK Caller ID patch and new CVS
> Reply-To: asterisk-dev at lists.digium.com
>
> Yes I have.
>
> The main problem I have is that if a patch can make things working in
> the short terms then why not add it? If a more elegant solution is
> found weeks later that patch can simply be taken out, either way the
> problem is solved,and people are happy since the software 'just
> works' while digium gains a larger customer base since the hardware
> now works as expected and more people can then buy the hardware and
> use it.
>
> I'm not even in the UK so that patch will not even help me at all,
> but I still think it a good idea; That has to say something.
>
>
> On 22 Jul 2004 at 11:51, Richard Lyman wrote:
>
> > it's obvious you never attempted to get a patch in the linux
> > kernel source! someone HAS to 'govern' the code, else it's just
> > a pile of spagetti.
> >
> > dking at pimpsoft.com wrote:
> >
> > > The true nature of open source is defined as the source being
> > > availabl=
> e and open. Limiting the included code for the central offering based on
> s= omeone=92s will because he thinks it will mean he can sell more
> hardware i= f he does not do so is not open source, its dictatorship. I
> find it very s= ad that based on my understanding asterisk will not
> include code that will= help many people just because one person feels
> that to do so would hurt h= is companies profit margins, when the code
> is no doubt already available
> > > somewhere else or is needed by someone.
> > >
> > > In the time I have watched this list even before I started posting I
>
> > > h=
> ave seen much of this; Keep up the dictatorship of the central code
> reposi= tory and I guarantee you a branch of the source code will form
> within the = next 3-6 months. Not by me since I do not have the
> requisite understanding= , but I believe it important to say here that
> if the open source community= does not like the way digium or
> =91Mark=92 is doing things it will simply= make them unnecessary for
> the project to go forward by cutting them out o= f
> the
> > > loop. And that perfectly acceptable from a legal standpoint since
> > > aste=
> risk is after all GPL.
> > >
> > > I don=92t mean to be cruel or annoying, I=92m stating facts as I see
>
> > > t=
> hem. If I am wrong or ignorant by all means tell me, but if it looks
> like = this to me, how do you think it looks to the thousands of other
> people gho= sting around this project and watching in the shadows as I
> once did?
> > >
> > > Just a though.
> > >
> > > On 22 Jul 2004 at 14:43, Chris Stenton wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>Mark does not like the history buffer method used. I think code
> > >>will =
> be
> > >>included for the the fxo module at some point but not for the X100P.
> > >>
> > >>Chris.
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Asterisk-Dev mailing list
> > > Asterisk-Dev at lists.digium.com
> > > http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev
> > > To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
> > > http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev
> > >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Asterisk-Dev mailing list
> > Asterisk-Dev at lists.digium.com
> > http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev
> > To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
> > http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 6
> From: dking at pimpsoft.com
> Organization: pimpsoft.com
> To: asterisk-dev at lists.digium.com
> Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 14:56:39 -0700
> Subject: RE: [Asterisk-Dev] UK Caller ID patch and new CVS
> Reply-To: asterisk-dev at lists.digium.com
>
> Maybe I am hearing it wrong, but it is my understanding that the code
> used to fix the problem as well as the needed hardware driver for the
> FXO card will not be included in the cvs, and the people at digum are
> just sitting on it.
>
> Is that correct?
>
> On 22 Jul 2004 at 12:42, Gilmore, Gerry wrote:
>
> > So which source is not available?
> >
> > -- There are 10 kinds of people in the world, those who understand
> > binary and those who don't.
> >
> > Gerry Gilmore
> > Field Applications Engineer
> > Communications Sales Organization
> > Intel Corporation
> > http://www.intel.com
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: asterisk-dev-admin at lists.digium.com
> > [mailto:asterisk-dev-admin at lists.digium.com] On Behalf Of
> > dking at pimpsoft.com
> > Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 2:21 PM
> > To: asterisk-dev at lists.digium.com
> > Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Dev] UK Caller ID patch and new CVS
> >
> >
> > The true nature of open source is defined as the source being
> > available and open. Limiting the included code for the central
> > offering based on someone's will because he thinks it will mean he can
>
> > sell more hardware if he does not do so is not open source, its
> > dictatorship. I find it very sad that based on my understanding
> > asterisk will not include code that will help many people just because
>
> > one person feels that to do so would hurt his companies profit
> > margins, when the code is no doubt already available somewhere else or
>
> > is needed by someone.
> >
> > In the time I have watched this list even before I started posting I
> > have seen much of this; Keep up the dictatorship of the central code
> > repository and I guarantee you a branch of the source code will form
> > within the next 3-6 months. Not by me since I do not have the
> > requisite understanding, but I believe it important to say here that
> > if the open source community does not like the way digium or 'Mark' is
>
> > doing things it will simply make them unnecessary for the project to
> > go forward by cutting them out of the loop. And that perfectly
> > acceptable from a legal standpoint since asterisk is after all GPL.
> >
> > I don't mean to be cruel or annoying, I'm stating facts as I see them.
>
> > If I am wrong or ignorant by all means tell me, but if it looks like
> > this to me, how do you think it looks to the thousands of other people
>
> > ghosting around this project and watching in the shadows as I once
> > did?
> >
> > Just a though.
> >
> > On 22 Jul 2004 at 14:43, Chris Stenton wrote:
> >
> > > Mark does not like the history buffer method used. I think code
> > > will
> > be
> > > included for the the fxo module at some point but not for the X100P.
> > >
> > > Chris.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Asterisk-Dev mailing list
> > Asterisk-Dev at lists.digium.com
> > http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev
> > To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
> > http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev
> > _______________________________________________
> > Asterisk-Dev mailing list
> > Asterisk-Dev at lists.digium.com
> > http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev
> > To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
> > http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 7
> From: "Rob Gagnon" <rob at networkip.net>
> To: <asterisk-dev at lists.digium.com>
> Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Dev] Authorization header not formatted properly
> when REGISTER msg is challenged (algorithm=MD5)
> Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 17:47:00 -0500
> Organization: Network IP
> Reply-To: asterisk-dev at lists.digium.com
>
> This is interesting.... You obviously are right, in that the quotes fix
> your problem. The issue seems to stem from an inconsistency in
> RFC3261...
>
> Sections 20.27, and 20.44 show examples with the MD5 without quotes:
> Example:
> Proxy-Authenticate: Digest realm="atlanta.com",
> domain="sip:ss1.carrier.com", qop="auth",
> nonce="f84f1cec41e6cbe5aea9c8e88d359",
> opaque="", stale=FALSE, algorithm=MD5
>
> Now, in Section 25.1 (Basic Rules), the value for "algorithm" is shown
> to apparently require the quotes:
> algorithm = "algorithm" EQUAL ( "MD5" / "MD5-sess" / token )
>
> So... I would think the solution, for now, is to make this configurable.
> I would imagine there are some devices that require the quotes, some
> that do not want it, and some that don't care.
>
> Until the RFC is cleared up, or Cisco modifies their IOS to support
> either quoted, or un-quoted values, I don't see much else you can do.
>
> Rob
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael Lunsford" <michael.lunsford at cbeyond.net>
> To: <asterisk-dev at lists.digium.com>
> Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 2:55 PM
> Subject: [Asterisk-Dev] Authorization header not formatted properly when
> REGISTER msg is challenged (algorithm=MD5)
>
>
> I am new to this forum and am looking for some help on an issue I'm
> having with the Asterisk. The company I work for has Cisco BTS 10200s
> deployed in several Tier 1 cities through the US with over 13,000
> customers to date. Our engineering team is performing interoperability
> testing between the Asterisk and the Cisco's BTS 10200 softswitch and
> have found an issue.
>
> With our switch configured to authorize the registration from Asterisk,
> the Asterisks responds to the challenge (401 Unauthorized) with an error
> in the REGISTER message. The authorization header in the REGISTER msg
> from the Asterisk contains 'algorithm="MD5"'. The quote around the MD5
> are not per spec in RFC 2617 3.2.1
> (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2617.txt). Section 3.2.2 "The Authorization
> Request Header" describes the response a User Agent takes when
> challenged with a "401 Unauthorized". It refers section 3.2.1 "The
> WWW-Authenticate Response Header" for the framework of the construction
> of the message. Referring to 3.2.1, we see that everything that is
> supposed to be quoted in the message states either "quoted-string" or
> has <"> to indicate that the quotes are supposed to be in the message.
> The quotes around the MD5 are not to be included in the message.
>
> In the source, I removed the quotes so that the authorization header in
> the REGISTER message now read 'algorithm=MD5' instead of
> 'algorithm="MD5"'. The BTS 10200 now accepts the message and sends a 200
> OK.
>
> Please let me know your thoughts. I am registered to the bug reporting
> site but wanted to query and see if others were in agreement with my
> interpretation of the spec.
>
> Thanks,
> Michael
>
> Immediately below is the SIP debug of the successful call sequence with
> the quotes removed around MD5. Below that is the unsucessful
> registration when the quotes are sent.
>
> #############################################################
> SIP debug for successful call registration after I have removed the
> quotes from around the MD5 in the authorization header.
>
> *CLI> sip reload
> Reloading SIP
> == Parsing '/etc/asterisk/sip.conf': Found
> 11 headers, 0 lines
> Reliably Transmitting:
> REGISTER sip:sia-lab2ca102.lab2.cbeyond.net SIP/2.0
> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 90.1.1.202:5060;branch=z9hG4bK15eef8b1
> From: <sip:6783979900 at sia-lab2ca102.lab2.cbeyond.net>;tag=as64e78660
> To: <sip:6783979900 at sia-lab2ca102.lab2.cbeyond.net>
> Call-ID: 6f264ca6263293f5400ccaa527dce06d at 90.1.1.202
> CSeq: 102 REGISTER
> User-Agent: Asterisk PBX
> Expires: 3600
> Contact: <sip:4000 at 90.1.1.202>
> Event: registration
> Content-Length: 0
>
> (no NAT) to 90.0.4.12:5060
>
>
> Sip read:
> SIP/2.0 401 Unauthorized
> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
> 90.1.1.202:5060;branch=z9hG4bK15eef8b1;received=90.1.1.202
> From: <sip:6783979900 at sia-lab2ca102.lab2.cbeyond.net>;tag=as64e78660
> To:
> <sip:6783979900 at sia-lab2ca102.lab2.cbeyond.net>;tag=1_1102_t9670_537e
> Call-ID: 6f264ca6263293f5400ccaa527dce06d at 90.1.1.202
> CSeq: 102 REGISTER
> WWW-Authenticate: Digest realm="customer10.lab2.cbeyond.net",
> nonce="6e2db394cb0ab7851d44d5472b1dac27", algorithm=MD5, qop="auth"
> Content-Length: 0
>
>
> 8 headers, 0 lines
> 12 headers, 0 lines
> Reliably Transmitting:
> REGISTER sip:sia-lab2ca102.lab2.cbeyond.net SIP/2.0
> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 90.1.1.202:5060;branch=z9hG4bK67fcb845
> From: <sip:6783979900 at sia-lab2ca102.lab2.cbeyond.net>;tag=as64e78660
> To: <sip:6783979900 at sia-lab2ca102.lab2.cbeyond.net>
> Call-ID: 6f264ca6263293f5400ccaa527dce06d at 90.1.1.202
> CSeq: 103 REGISTER
> User-Agent: Asterisk PBX
> Authorization: Digest username="6783979900",
> realm="customer10.lab2.cbeyond.net", algorithm=MD5,
> uri="sip:sia-lab2ca102.lab2.cbeyond.net",
> nonce="6e2db394cb0ab7851d44d5472b1dac27",
> response="549eb04688dcea6195e24fb1de1d41d0", opaque="", qop="auth",
> cnonce="795cdc3e", nc=00000001
> Expires: 3600
> Contact: <sip:4000 at 90.1.1.202>
> Event: registration
> Content-Length: 0
>
> (no NAT) to 90.0.4.12:5060
>
>
> Sip read:
> SIP/2.0 200 OK
> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
> 90.1.1.202:5060;branch=z9hG4bK67fcb845;received=90.1.1.202
> From: <sip:6783979900 at sia-lab2ca102.lab2.cbeyond.net>;tag=as64e78660
> To:
> <sip:6783979900 at sia-lab2ca102.lab2.cbeyond.net>;tag=1_1102_t9670_537e
> Call-ID: 6f264ca6263293f5400ccaa527dce06d at 90.1.1.202
> CSeq: 103 REGISTER
> Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 19:41:54 GMT
> Contact: <sip:4000 at 90.1.1.20>;expires=1226,
> <sip:4000 at 90.1.1.202>;expires=3600
> Authentication-Info: qop="auth",
> rspauth="8369aa16a70f6bef295a0366fcd3b2de", cnonce="795cdc3e",
> nc=00000001
> Content-Length: 0
>
>
> 10 headers, 0 lines
>
>
> ####################################################
> Below is sip debug for unsuccessful registration when Asterisk sends
> 'algorithm="MD5"'
>
>
> *CLI> sip reload
> Reloading SIP
> == Parsing '/etc/asterisk/sip.conf': Found
> 11 headers, 0 lines
> Reliably Transmitting:
> REGISTER sip:sia-lab2ca102.lab2.cbeyond.net SIP/2.0
> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 90.1.1.202:5060;branch=z9hG4bK4269b1ab
> From: <sip:6783979900 at sia-lab2ca102.lab2.cbeyond.net>;tag=as034fa66d
> To: <sip:6783979900 at sia-lab2ca102.lab2.cbeyond.net>
> Call-ID: 56ecb3a6001b35192b5ee19d4138fe81 at 90.1.1.202
> CSeq: 102 REGISTER
> User-Agent: Asterisk PBX
> Expires: 3600
> Contact: <sip:4000 at 90.1.1.202>
> Event: registration
> Content-Length: 0
>
> (no NAT) to 90.0.4.12:5060
>
>
> Sip read:
> SIP/2.0 401 Unauthorized
> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
> 90.1.1.202:5060;branch=z9hG4bK4269b1ab;received=90.1.1.202
> From: <sip:6783979900 at sia-lab2ca102.lab2.cbeyond.net>;tag=as034fa66d
> To:
> <sip:6783979900 at sia-lab2ca102.lab2.cbeyond.net>;tag=1_1102_t9680_1y9b
> Call-ID: 56ecb3a6001b35192b5ee19d4138fe81 at 90.1.1.202
> CSeq: 102 REGISTER
> WWW-Authenticate: Digest realm="customer10.lab2.cbeyond.net",
> nonce="f6576068a2173d58e60f282deb3d3bd5", algorithm=MD5, qop="auth"
> Content-Length: 0
>
>
> 8 headers, 0 lines
> 12 headers, 0 lines
> Reliably Transmitting:
> REGISTER sip:sia-lab2ca102.lab2.cbeyond.net SIP/2.0
> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 90.1.1.202:5060;branch=z9hG4bK7e9b8de5
> From: <sip:6783979900 at sia-lab2ca102.lab2.cbeyond.net>;tag=as034fa66d
> To: <sip:6783979900 at sia-lab2ca102.lab2.cbeyond.net>
> Call-ID: 56ecb3a6001b35192b5ee19d4138fe81 at 90.1.1.202
> CSeq: 103 REGISTER
> User-Agent: Asterisk PBX
> Authorization: Digest username="6783979900",
> realm="customer10.lab2.cbeyond.net", algorithm="MD5",
> uri="sip:sia-lab2ca102.lab2.cbeyond.net",
> nonce="f6576068a2173d58e60f282deb3d3bd5",
> response="5840d28faf5e5ed95d0fceda4711bd7b", opaque="", qop="auth",
> cnonce="655123e8", nc=00000001
> Expires: 3600
> Contact: <sip:4000 at 90.1.1.202>
> Event: registration
> Content-Length: 0
>
> (no NAT) to 90.0.4.12:5060
>
>
> Sip read:
> SIP/2.0 400 Bad Request
> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
> 90.1.1.202:5060;branch=z9hG4bK7e9b8de5;received=90.1.1.202
> From: <sip:6783979900 at sia-lab2ca102.lab2.cbeyond.net>;tag=as034fa66d
> To: <sip:6783979900 at sia-lab2ca102.lab2.cbeyond.net>
> Call-ID: 56ecb3a6001b35192b5ee19d4138fe81 at 90.1.1.202
> CSeq: 103 REGISTER
> Content-Length: 0
>
>
> 7 headers, 0 lines
> -- Got SIP response 400 "Bad Request" back from 90.0.4.12 Destroying
> call '56ecb3a6001b35192b5ee19d4138fe81 at 90.1.1.202'
> _______________________________________________
> Asterisk-Dev mailing list
> Asterisk-Dev at lists.digium.com
> http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev
> To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
> http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev
>
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> _______________________________________________
> Asterisk-Dev mailing list
> Asterisk-Dev at lists.digium.com
> http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev
>
>
> End of Asterisk-Dev Digest
>
> _______________________________________________
> Asterisk-Dev mailing list
> Asterisk-Dev at lists.digium.com
> http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev
> To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
> http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev
More information about the asterisk-dev
mailing list