Module: kamailio
Branch: master
Commit: e5f472ca5d8d2e16adb8b5a5a316521a618c8d9f
URL: https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/commit/e5f472ca5d8d2e16adb8b5a5a316521…
Author: Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda(a)gmail.com>
Committer: Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda(a)gmail.com>
Date: 2015-07-28T10:23:28+02:00
tm: added note in docs for t_set_no_e2e_cancel_reason()
- it has to be used when processing the INVITE
---
Modified: modules/tm/doc/functions.xml
---
Diff: https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/commit/e5f472ca5d8d2e16adb8b5a5a316521…
Patch: https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/commit/e5f472ca5d8d2e16adb8b5a5a316521…
---
diff --git a/modules/tm/doc/functions.xml b/modules/tm/doc/functions.xml
index b53b97d..b022fd9 100644
--- a/modules/tm/doc/functions.xml
+++ b/modules/tm/doc/functions.xml
@@ -1665,6 +1665,10 @@ t_relay_to("0x01");
parameter) for the current transaction.
</para>
<para>
+ Note: the function has to be used when processing the INVITE
+ (not when processing the CANCEL).
+ </para>
+ <para>
See also: <varname>e2e_cancel_reason</varname>.
</para>
<example>
We have a 4.3 Kamailio with Permissions, trying to use address* functions.The table is in a text file with db_text with some error in it, so Kamailio fails to load a hash table. The server starts, but if we run a RPC command or call a function in the routing script, we get a core dump.
The permissions module checks should always check if the address table exist before accessing it.
---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/issues/248
Module: kamailio
Branch: master
Commit: 0c42a848258d475f57ea25458bc75e55dcee948d
URL: https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/commit/0c42a848258d475f57ea25458bc75e5…
Author: Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda(a)gmail.com>
Committer: Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda(a)gmail.com>
Date: 2015-07-27T18:57:53+02:00
rr: fix detecting next strict router
- a regression after adding support for sip-outbound
- more verbose debug messages
- reported by Antonio Real, GH #267
---
Modified: modules/rr/loose.c
---
Diff: https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/commit/0c42a848258d475f57ea25458bc75e5…
Patch: https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/commit/0c42a848258d475f57ea25458bc75e5…
---
diff --git a/modules/rr/loose.c b/modules/rr/loose.c
index de06bb3..76204c9 100644
--- a/modules/rr/loose.c
+++ b/modules/rr/loose.c
@@ -757,7 +757,7 @@ static inline int after_loose(struct sip_msg* _m, int preloaded)
int status = RR_DRIVEN;
str uri;
struct socket_info *si;
- int uri_is_myself, next_is_strict;
+ int uri_is_myself;
int use_ob = 0;
hdr = _m->route;
@@ -768,11 +768,11 @@ static inline int after_loose(struct sip_msg* _m, int preloaded)
routed_msg_id = 0;
if (parse_uri(uri.s, uri.len, &puri) < 0) {
- LM_ERR("failed to parse the first route URI\n");
+ LM_ERR("failed to parse the first route URI (%.*s)\n",
+ uri.len, ZSW(uri.s));
return RR_ERROR;
}
- next_is_strict = is_strict(&puri.params);
routed_params = puri.params;
uri_is_myself = is_myself(&puri);
@@ -815,7 +815,8 @@ static inline int after_loose(struct sip_msg* _m, int preloaded)
/* double route may occure due different IP and port, so force as
* send interface the one advertise in second Route */
if (parse_uri(rt->nameaddr.uri.s,rt->nameaddr.uri.len,&puri)<0) {
- LM_ERR("failed to parse the double route URI\n");
+ LM_ERR("failed to parse the double route URI (%.*s)\n",
+ rt->nameaddr.uri.len, ZSW(rt->nameaddr.uri.s));
return RR_ERROR;
}
@@ -852,7 +853,8 @@ static inline int after_loose(struct sip_msg* _m, int preloaded)
uri = rt->nameaddr.uri;
if (parse_uri(uri.s, uri.len, &puri) < 0) {
- LM_ERR("failed to parse the first route URI\n");
+ LM_ERR("failed to parse the next route URI (%.*s)\n",
+ uri.len, ZSW(uri.s));
return RR_ERROR;
}
} else {
@@ -867,7 +869,7 @@ static inline int after_loose(struct sip_msg* _m, int preloaded)
}
LM_DBG("URI to be processed: '%.*s'\n", uri.len, ZSW(uri.s));
- if (next_is_strict) {
+ if (is_strict(&puri.params)) {
LM_DBG("Next URI is a strict router\n");
if (handle_sr(_m, hdr, rt) < 0) {
LM_ERR("failed to handle strict router\n");
Hello.
When i tested acc_radius module , i realize module doesn't send ACK/ALIVE packets. So i digged the code i found acc module sends INVITE request instead of ACK. I fixed these on my local so you can check it and fix it ?
First of all
in acc_logic.c at acc_onack function
- acc_run_engines(req, 0, NULL);
+acc_run_engines(ack, 0, NULL);
Second
in acc.c at acc_run_engines
- if((type==0) && ((e->acc_flag))) {
+if((type==0) && (msg->flags&(e->acc_flag))) {
Thanks
http://sip-router.1086192.n5.nabble.com/About-Acc-radius-rad-sttaus-Functio…
---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/issues/266
Module: kamailio
Branch: 4.3
Commit: c68a6dcad598130bc6894f1de5ef3b39eb789660
URL: https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/commit/c68a6dcad598130bc6894f1de5ef3b3…
Author: Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda(a)gmail.com>
Committer: Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda(a)gmail.com>
Date: 2015-07-27T18:24:59+02:00
acc: note about setting acc flag for ACKs that should be recorded
(cherry picked from commit 6656d4459f0c7d4c1b7cb5d2b214201c5a587c5c)
---
Modified: modules/acc/README
Modified: modules/acc/doc/acc_admin.xml
---
Diff: https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/commit/c68a6dcad598130bc6894f1de5ef3b3…
Patch: https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/commit/c68a6dcad598130bc6894f1de5ef3b3…
---
diff --git a/modules/acc/README b/modules/acc/README
index 2c742ee..a019b0e 100644
--- a/modules/acc/README
+++ b/modules/acc/README
@@ -767,7 +767,8 @@ modparam("acc", "failed_filter", "404,407")
Shall acc attempt to account e2e ACKs too ? Note that this is really
only an attempt, as e2e ACKs may take a different path (unless RR
enabled) and mismatch original INVITE (e2e ACKs are a separate
- transaction).
+ transaction). The flag for accounting has to be set for each ACK as
+ well.
Default value is 0 (no).
diff --git a/modules/acc/doc/acc_admin.xml b/modules/acc/doc/acc_admin.xml
index 820f480..fbe7dc3 100644
--- a/modules/acc/doc/acc_admin.xml
+++ b/modules/acc/doc/acc_admin.xml
@@ -559,7 +559,8 @@ modparam("acc", "failed_filter", "404,407")
Shall acc attempt to account e2e ACKs too ? Note that this is really
only an attempt, as e2e ACKs may take a different path
(unless RR enabled) and mismatch original INVITE (e2e ACKs are
- a separate transaction).
+ a separate transaction). The flag for accounting has to be set
+ for each ACK as well.
</para>
<para>
Default value is 0 (no).