Hello,
a quick update about the next training in Barcelona, Feb 10-11, 2011,
focusing on Kamailio development. We got a bigger room (for second time
:-) ), so we increased the capacity to 28 seats. We are already 23
people in the class and several more joining the dinner Thursday
evening, so there is going to be a great time. If you plan to come,
register asap, there is no time to get a bigger room, so once we are
full booked this time, we close the participants list.
You can see more details at:
http://www.kamailio.org/w/2011/01/kamailio-development-training-barcelona-f…
Also, do not forget Fosdem next weekend, it is a bunch of us going
there, two talks about Kamailio, come and say hi:
http://www.kamailio.org/w/2011/01/social-networking-event-brussels-belgium/
Cheers,
Daniel
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
http://www.asipto.com
Hello,
I wrote a H.323/SIP IWF program before, it was based on B2BUA
framework. Currently I am planning to
use Kamailio as internal routing server and let IWF become a class 4 soft
switch.That is
Inbound ---- H.323/ SIP -- > ---- SIP routing
request-----> Kamailio
IWF/SBC
|
Outbound <--- H.323/SIP -- <--- SIP
-----------------------------
Is it ok to store all voip provider's information at database of
Kamailio and pass all to IWF at private SIP headers and let IWF as a
outbound proxy?
Is Kamailio as a SIP redirect server or it is better to stay at call
signaling path until call session ended?
It is great to share any information about this.
regards,
Gang
Hi Kamailio Users,
I'm trying to use LCR module in Kamailio 3.1.1 and I', having some
problems with this function (load_gws).
I'm my kamailio.cfg , I have this route:
# SEARCH DEST
route[NUMBER] {
xlog("L_ALERT", "NUMBER IS $rU \n");
if ($rU=~"^55211020[0-9]{4}$") { # IS MY USERS
route(LDAP_NUM2USER);
} else { # NOT IS MY USER
if (!load_gws(1,$rU)) {
xlog("L_ALERT", "LOAD LOCAL GW FAILED $rU \n");
route(DSER);
return;
} else {
xlog("L_ALERT", "LOAD GW DEBUG $avp(i:709)\n");
} ;
if (!next_gw()) {
xlog("L_ALERT", "NEXT LOCAL GW FAILED\n");
sl_send_reply("503", "Service not available -
No gateways");
return;
};
setflag(29);
route(RELAY);
return;
};
};
When my call arrive to load_gws, I have this problem:
(2198) ERROR: <core> [action.c:1158]: runtime fixup failed for load_gws param 2
(2198) ERROR: <core> [action.c:1511]: run action error at:
/etc/kamailio/kamailio.cfg:472
I already saw the Kamailio Code and this error doesn't make sense.
Would somebody Help me with it?
Very thanks,
Thiago Maluf.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thiago Maluf Resende
Tel: +55 21 9700-9113
e-mail: malufrj(a)gmail.com
Hello my friends,
I have a requeriment, which indicates that i have to record every SIP
conversation between peers (also for callings to the PSTN); the
recording server will be built for our company following this
requeriments (also requested for the client):
My doubt is: How can i handle sip conversations recording when all the
calls are passing through a Proxy Server? I do understand that the
media is always peer to peer and the signaling goes through the Proxy,
but in this case the media not only has to pass between the peers
because it must be recorded.
How should i handle this?
Hello
I have started to use configuration like:
http://kb.asipto.com/asterisk:realtime:kamailio-3.0.x-asterisk-1.6.2-astdb
I works fine, but I have problem with dealing with NAT.
kamctl ul show gives me:
AOR:: andrzej_104
Contact::
sip:andrzej_104@10.5.0.94:14368;rinstance=9c2b256a13210aa7 Q=
Expires:: 46
Callid:: ZDUwYzIzMDNiZTI3MjkyNmFmOWEyOTI2ODcyNjVmNDg.
Cseq:: 60
User-agent:: eyeBeam release 1102q stamp 51814
State:: CS_DIRTY
Flags:: 0
Cflag:: 0
Socket:: udp:77.xx.yyy.zzz:5060
Methods:: 5087
AOR:: andrzej_103
Contact:: sip:andrzej_103@10.5.0.165:5060 Q=
Expires:: 926
Callid:: 11631436-5060-1(a)10.5.0.165
Cseq:: 2257
User-agent:: Grandstream HT-502 V1.2A 1.0.3.10
State:: CS_SYNC
Flags:: 0
Cflag:: 0
Socket:: udp:77.xx.yyy.zzz:5060
Methods:: 6879
So when I have incomming call from Asterisk to Kamailio, Kamailio
start to send call to LAN IP.
I have tried to use help from:
http://nil.uniza.sk/sip/nat-fw/configuring-nat-traversal-using-kamailio-31-…
But I have never get:
Received:: and Cflag:: 192 it is always Cflag:: 0.
field in my kamctl ul show.
In my configuration Asterisk is Callweaver and is on the other server.
I use rtpproxy-1.2.1 and kamailio-3.0.1 and mofified config from link:
http://kb.asipto.com/asterisk:realtime:kamailio-3.0.x-asterisk-1.6.2-astdb
Please help.
Hi,
I'm trying to create a RLS "rls-services" document with a contacts-list
inside it. Kamailio states that "No xcap document found for uri:x".
When creating a subscribe I must set the uri to the service uri. What I
want to know is the sql query Kamailio does in order to get the contacts
list for that uri.
For example: XCAP document:
"<?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"UTF-8\"?>" +
"<rls-services
xmlns=\"urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rls-services\"" +
" xmlns:rl=\"urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:resource-lists\">" +
"<service
uri=\"sip:restricted_areas_presentities@open-ims.test\">" +
"<list name=\"friends\">" +
"<rl:entry uri=\"sip:testuser01@open-ims.test\"/>" +
"<rl:entry uri=\"sip:testuser02@open-ims.test\"/>" +
"</list>" +
"<packages>" +
"<package>presence</package>" +
"</packages>" +
"</service>" +
"</rls-services>";
Is stored in
/xcap-root/rls-services/users/sip:restricted_areas@open-ims.test/index
The subscribe is from sip:restricted_areas@open-ims.test to
sip:restricted_areas_presentities@open-ims.test
What am I doing wrong?
Thanks,
Andrés.
Hi
I have installed Kamailio with MediaProxy and asterisk on Amazon Server..
While kamailio/MediaProxy and Asterisk both running on different amazon's
instance.
Kamailio : 1.5.0-notls
MediaProxy : 2.3.8
Asterisk : 1.6.2.6
Firewall port is opened for mediaproxy from 10000-20000 (UDP), 5060 (UDP)
etc on both amazon machine..
while I tried to play an audio... it plays sound file but unable to found
audio on device.
when I put tcpdump on asterisk machine it gives following error...
# tcpdump -i eth0 udp portrange 10000-20000 -w test1.pcap
01:39:52.850279 IP (tos 0xb8, ttl 64, id 59, offset 0, flags [DF], proto:
UDP (17), length: 60) ip-W.X.Y.Z.compute.internal.15246 > xyz.com.10010:
[bad udp cksum 3cfd!] UDP, length 32
01:39:52.870279 IP (tos 0xb8, ttl 64, id 60, offset 0, flags [DF], proto:
UDP (17), length: 60) ip-W.X.Y.Z.compute.internal.15246 > xyz.com.10010:
[bad udp cksum 97fe!] UDP, length 32
01:39:52.890281 IP (tos 0xb8, ttl 64, id 61, offset 0, flags [DF], proto:
UDP (17), length: 60) ip-W.X.Y.Z.compute.internal.15246 > xyz.com.10010:
[bad udp cksum 75c0!] UDP, length 32
Any Idea..!!
--
Regards,
Chandrakant Solanki
Hi,
thanks for your response. I think I understand the scenario very good - but im not so familiar with the fix_nated_sdp() functionality.
Currently the SDP will be modified with the source IP of the message. This does work good but currently I only do that for some special devices (matching the User-Agent / Server string). I want to do that fix_nated_sdp() in all cases and not only for some special devices.
The FreeSWITCH RTP-Auto Adjustment does work in nearly every case but in one (currently known) scenario it does not.
Maybe I should just give it a try to do fix_nated_sdp() in combination with nat_uac_test (RFC1918 private address in SDP).
Thanks a lot for this discussion.
Best Regards,
Bernhard
----- Original Message -----
From: Ovidiu Sas [mailto:osas@voipembedded.com]
To: Bernhard Suttner [mailto:bernhard.suttner@winet.ch]
Cc: Carsten Bock [mailto:lists@bock.info], sr-users(a)lists.sip-router.org
Sent: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 20:38:14 +0100
Subject: Re: [SR-Users] fix_nated_sdp()
> You need to experiment with nathelper module and while doing that, you
> need to inspect the SIP messages in order to understand how it works.
> Only when you fully understand your scenarios, you will be able to
> properly configure, debg and setup kamailio.
>
> Best thing to do here is to use rtpproxy and relay media if needed.
>
> Another option would be to let the SDP untouched and let freeswitch do
> it's magic (if it can). Not sure if this will work in all scenarios.
>
> Calling fix_nated_sdp() on the SBC will definitely not work (you are
> just messing with the IP on the SDP and you don't know if the real RTP
> port on the NATed side will match the advertised port in your "fixed"
> SDP).
>
>
> Regards,
> Ovidiu Sas
>
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 1:23 PM, Bernhard Suttner
> <bernhard.suttner(a)winet.ch> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > thanks for your answer.
> >
> > The question was about, if the fix_nated_sdp() (in the example below)
> could maybe break something. I am sure, that the fix_nated_sdp() would work
> in "some" cases but I am not sure, if the function could break something:
> >
> >
> > if (method==INVITE && has_sdp() && nat_uac_test(8)) fix_nated_sdp(3)
> >
> > and within the onreply route:
> >
> > if (status=~(180|183|200) && has_sdp() && nat_uac_test(8))
> fix_nated_sdp(3)
> >
> >
> > Or is there a better solution to fix these damend NAT scenarios?
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Bernhard
> >
> >
> > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > Von: kaiserbock2(a)googlemail.com [mailto:kaiserbock2@googlemail.com] Im
> Auftrag von Carsten Bock
> > Gesendet: Dienstag, 25. Januar 2011 18:56
> > An: Bernhard Suttner
> > Cc: sr-users(a)lists.sip-router.org
> > Betreff: Re: [SR-Users] fix_nated_sdp()
> >
> > Hi Bernhard,
> >
> > have you checked the SDP which is going to and from the
> > Freeswitch-Server? Is it modified?
> >
> > If yes: You may want to check your NAT-Firewall. A working (but not
> > nice) solution might be to relay the RTP through an proxy in this
> > case...
> > If No: Verify the result of "nat_uac_test": Why is it returning "false"?
> >
> > Carsten
> >
> > 2011/1/25 Bernhard Suttner <bernhard.suttner(a)winet.ch>:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> someone has an idea?
> >>
> >> Thanks in advance!
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >> Bernhard
> >>
> >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> >> Von: sr-users-bounces(a)lists.sip-router.org
> [mailto:sr-users-bounces@lists.sip-router.org] Im Auftrag von Bernhard
> Suttner
> >> Gesendet: Montag, 24. Januar 2011 20:38
> >> An: sr-users(a)lists.sip-router.org
> >> Betreff: [SR-Users] fix_nated_sdp()
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I have a question about the fix_nated_sdp() function. Different devices
> (phones, pbxes, gateways) are using Kamailio as SBC. The SBC does t_relay()
> the message to a pool of FreeSWITCH Servers.
> >>
> >> The scenario does work quite well but:
> >>
> >> if a call is initiated from one of the freeswitch server, pass it through
> kamailio to the PBX and the PBX does have a forwarding back to kamailio and
> in the end to freeswitch I have no audio because the PBX is behind a NAT and
> uses private ip addresses in all the SDP of 200 OK and 183 Session Progress.
> Therefore FreeSWITCH could not do the (very cool) RTP Auto-Adjustment (check
> if IP in incoming packet is different to the IP in the SDP) to detect the
> real IP address.
> >>
> >> Therefore I have to use fix_nated_sdp(). I am not sure, what this
> function could break therefore I want to be very sure and use it only, if
> really necessary. Test which User-Agent or Server the peer (in this example
> the PBX) has, is not really possible because some devices does not send this
> header.
> >>
> >> What do you think about the follwoing pseudo code:
> >>
> >> if (method==INVITE && has_sdp() && nat_uac_test(8)) fix_nated_sdp(3)
> >>
> >> and within the onreply route:
> >>
> >> if (status=~(180|183|200) && has_sdp() && nat_uac_test(8))
> fix_nated_sdp(3)
> >>
> >> Somebody has a better idea to handle this? What could go wrong?
> >>
> >> Thanks in advance.
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >> Bernhard Suttner
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list
> >> sr-users(a)lists.sip-router.org
> >> http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list
> >> sr-users(a)lists.sip-router.org
> >> http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Carsten Bock
> > Schomburgstr. 80
> > 22767 Hamburg
> > Germany
> >
> > Mobile +49 179 2021244
> > Home +49 40 34927217
> > Büro (Verl) +49 5246 801427
> > Fax +49 40 34927218
> > mailto:carsten@bock.info
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list
> > sr-users(a)lists.sip-router.org
> > http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
> >
>
Hi,
I have a question about the fix_nated_sdp() function. Different devices (phones, pbxes, gateways) are using Kamailio as SBC. The SBC does t_relay() the message to a pool of FreeSWITCH Servers.
The scenario does work quite well but:
if a call is initiated from one of the freeswitch server, pass it through kamailio to the PBX and the PBX does have a forwarding back to kamailio and in the end to freeswitch I have no audio because the PBX is behind a NAT and uses private ip addresses in all the SDP of 200 OK and 183 Session Progress. Therefore FreeSWITCH could not do the (very cool) RTP Auto-Adjustment (check if IP in incoming packet is different to the IP in the SDP) to detect the real IP address.
Therefore I have to use fix_nated_sdp(). I am not sure, what this function could break therefore I want to be very sure and use it only, if really necessary. Test which User-Agent or Server the peer (in this example the PBX) has, is not really possible because some devices does not send this header.
What do you think about the follwoing pseudo code:
if (method==INVITE && has_sdp() && nat_uac_test(8)) fix_nated_sdp(3)
and within the onreply route:
if (status=~(180|183|200) && has_sdp() && nat_uac_test(8)) fix_nated_sdp(3)
Somebody has a better idea to handle this? What could go wrong?
Thanks in advance.
Best regards,
Bernhard Suttner