I have some questions regarding the shared memory. I'm working with the version 1.5.2 and
its environment is quite simple. It does'nt storage any informations in the memory, like dialplan,
contacts of subscribers, carrierroute, LCR and etc. The only purpose of this server is being a
redirect server. Some calls have several possible destinations, reaching easily 12 contacts.
The config.h's constant MAX_BRANCHES is set in 12, the default number. Ok.
Like I said, almost the requests have more than 12 possible contacts. When it happens, Kamailio
logs these messages:
/usr/local/kamailio-1.5.2/sbin/kamailio[26188]: ERROR:core:append_branch: max nr of branches exceeded
/usr/local/kamailio-1.5.2/sbin/kamailio[26188]: ERROR:pv:pv_set_branch: append_branch action failed
Ok. It is not a problem. It is an error but it does not stop the system. The SIP messages still flowing
normally. The server works for several days, 24/7 without functional errors, receiving
five hundred thousand requests per day . But, usually at the weekends and the clock tells 2:30 am,
the company's cell phone rings bringing a message: 'the system is down'. Kamailio shows:
/usr/local/kamailio-1.5.2/sbin/kamailio[25492]: ERROR:core:add_avp: no more shm mem
/usr/local/kamailio-1.5.2/sbin/kamailio[25492]: ERROR:exec:exec_avp: unable to add avp
Kamailio stills running but it is not possible to route any request. All the new incoming
calls generates the same error: 'no more shm mem'. I changed the size of shared memory,
running Kamailio with '-m 64', but the server stopped again after some days. I see the options:
- increase MAX_BRANCHES
- increase again 'm' parameter (but it will just add more some days in the running time)
- reduce the maximum number of contacts to 11 of the script that returns them to Kamailio
So, my doubts are:
- is it possible to have a memory leak when the message "max nr of branches exceeded" is showed?
- changing '-m parameter' to a higher value, like 256, could affect the performance?
tks friends
bruno machado
____________________________________________________________________________________
Veja quais são os assuntos do momento no Yahoo! +Buscados
http://br.maisbuscados.yahoo.com
Hi gentlemen,
I'm having a bit of a hard time developing a bridge for media sessions.
I have a box with 2 interfaces; eth0 has the private IP p.r.i.v and eth1 has
public IP p.u.b.l.
When I receive a message in the private IP I try sending the call to a
public proxy we have (p.u.b.2) using Carrierroute module but the source IP
used is p.r.i.v. It is obvious that p.u.b.2 will not be able to route back
messages.
#
U 192.168.200.11:5060 -> p.r.i.v:5060
INVITE sip:1568767139@p.r.i.v SIP/2.0.
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.200.11:5060;branch=z9hG4bK5d94bc09.
From: "60911000" <sip:60911000@p.r.i.v>;tag=as6d477d46.
To: <sip:1568767139@p.r.i.v>.
Contact: <sip:60911000@192.168.200.11 <sip%3A60911000(a)192.168.200.11>>.
...
#
U p.r.i.v:5060 -> p.u.b.2:5060
INVITE sip:1568767139@p.u.b.2 SIP/2.0.
Record-Route: <sip:p.r.i.v;lr=on;ftag=as6d477d46>.
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP p.r.i.v;branch=z9hG4bKf531.440788e1.0.
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.200.11:5060
;rport=5060;received=192.168.200.11;branch=z9hG4bK5d94bc09.
From: "60911000" <sip:60911000@p.r.i.v>;tag=as6d477d46.
To: <sip:1568767139@p.r.i.v>.
Contact: <sip:60911000@192.168.200.11 <sip%3A60911000(a)192.168.200.11>>.
...
I try then to set listen=0.0.0.0 so kamailio will be binded to all IPs but
then the Route headers and Via use this 0.0.0.0
#
U 192.168.200.11:5060 -> p.r.i.v:5060
INVITE sip:1568767139@p.r.i.v SIP/2.0.
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.200.11:5060;branch=z9hG4bK14a00df7.
From: "60911000" <sip:60911000@p.r.i.v>;tag=as502405cf.
To: <sip:1568767139@p.r.i.v>.
Contact: <sip:60911000@192.168.200.11 <sip%3A60911000(a)192.168.200.11>>.
...
#
U p.u.b.l:5060 -> p.u.b.2:5060
INVITE sip:1568767139@p.u.b.2 SIP/2.0.
Record-Route: <sip:0.0.0.0;lr=on;ftag=as502405cf>.
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 0.0.0.0;branch=z9hG4bK711b.8d28549.0.
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.200.11:5060
;rport=5060;received=192.168.200.11;branch=z9hG4bK14a00df7.
From: "60911000" <sip:60911000@p.r.i.v>;tag=as502405cf.
To: <sip:1568767139@p.r.i.v>.
Contact: <sip:60911000@192.168.200.11 <sip%3A60911000(a)192.168.200.11>>.
...
In this case the destination UA cannot return the call because it does not
have a valid IP to do so.
Is there any way to make Kamailio act in a different way? Like letting me
modify the IP it will use for Via and Record-Route headers. Be aware that
I'm supposed to do some kind of mirror for calls coming from outside the
network (origin is public and destination is private).
I'm sure I'll be asking some more on this same thread as I test.
Thanks in advance!
Uriel
Hello,
if you are a student (or you know a student) interested in working with
SIP Router over the summer, earning some money as well, please apply for
GSoC Conferencing Presence support (or forward this email).
The description of the project is done at:
http://www.sip-communicator.org/index.php/GSOC2010/Kamailio4575
If you have technical details about the project please ask them on
sr-dev(a)lists.sip-router.org. For GSoC related questions, please address
to: gsoc(a)sip-communicator.dev.java.net.
A good FAQ for applicants is available at:
http://www.sip-communicator.org/index.php/GSOC2010/HowToApply
Application must be done directly to the google site, link provided in
the FAQ.
I will be in charge of mentoring this particular project, helping you as
much as possible to understand the current presence server architecture
and the core API of sip router.
Cheers,
Daniel
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
* http://www.asipto.com/
Hi,
does someone have a kamailio.init file for Centos5?
The .../pkg/kamailio/[debian, fedora, ...]/kamailio.init files don't work!
Thank you very much!
Detlef Pilzecker
Hi guys,
I have some easy doubt about nathelper functions using RTPProxy.
I'm trying to bridge from an external IP to an internal IP.
The start-line for rtpproxy is: rtpproxy -l PUBLIC_IP/PRIVATE_IP -s udp:
127.0.0.1:7999 -F
It starts OK and I see it when kamailio starts.
I'm going to use something like Daniel showed on some other mail:
if(dst_ip==private)
force_rtp_proxy("ocfaei");
else
force_rtp_proxy("ocfaei");
if i have the invite from a public IP to someone in private on the request
I'll run
force_rtp_proxy("ocfaei");
then the reply will be from private to public... should I run
"force_rtp_proxy("ocfaei");"? or should it be the same?
As allways, thanks for your help.
Kind regards,
Uriel
Hello,
I am wondering if anyone has a clever way to remotely monitor a Kamailio 1.5
server. I am not looking for the standard monitoring, what I am looking to
achieve is catching situations where my upstream carrier is having
problems. We have a certain level of 404, 500, 503 errors throughout the
day which are not indicative of a major carrier problem. I want to be able
to monitor the ratio of properly setup calls to failed setups - so I can
know when a carrier is having issues and is responding with many 503 errors.
Any push in the right direction would be greatly appreciated.
thanks.
So I sent an email out a few weeks ago regarding the stateful stats in ser 0.9.6.
Stateful Statistics
Current: 6 (200 waiting) Total: 6387581 (0 local)
Replied localy: 6869160
The number waiting is slowly going up.
Can somebody point me to a developer of ser I can talk to regarding this? So far there is no affect to any of my users but I want to make sure this does not get out of hand.
Thanks
Mike
________________________________
DISCLAIMER: This e-mail may contain information that is confidential, privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not an intended recipient of this e-mail, do not duplicate or redistribute it by any means. Please delete it and any attachments and notify the sender that you have received it in error. Unintended recipients are prohibited from taking action on the basis of information in this e-mail.E-mail messages may contain computer viruses or other defects, may not be accurately replicated on other systems, or may be intercepted, deleted or interfered with without the knowledge of the sender or the intended recipient. If you are not comfortable with the risks associated with e-mail messages, you may decide not to use e-mail to communicate with IPC. IPC reserves the right, to the extent and under circumstances permitted by applicable law, to retain, monitor and intercept e-mail messages to and from its systems.
Hello,
a kind reminder for today's audio conference scheduled for 16:00GMT.
Check the start time for your zone at:
http://vuc.me/next
After presenting the achievements so far within SIP Router, with what is
new in 3.0.0 release and development version, you have an unique
opportunity to ask questions to:
- Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul, the creator of SIP Express Router (SER), the
architect behind the core (transport layers, memory management,
asynchronous processing, timers, etc), who will be also able to answer
anything from project's history started in 2001
- Alex Balashov, Kamailio management team member, experienced consultant
in building large SIP platforms
- myself, as co-founder of Kamailio (OpenSER)
You can join via irc on #vuc (note that some of us started to hang out
on #sip-router) channel at irc.freenode.net.
Dialing to VUC is possible via sip, skype, pstn, web page and more, see:
http://vuc.me
Five hours to go right now, hear you then!
Daniel
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
* http://www.asipto.com/