Hello,
I had posted this question earlier on asterisk-users, but didn't receive
any reply, so I'm posting on sr-users in the hope that someone can
provide guidance on how to debug this problem.
Our setup involves a Sip softphone registering with a fresh install of
Asterisk v1.6.0.5 through an outbound proxy (Kamailio v3.1.1).
We observe that about 80% of the time, immediately after startup of the
softphone, when the softphone sends a REGISTER message, Asterisk replies
with a "503 Server error". However, subsequent REGISTER messages are
replied to appropriately (with a 401 Unauthorized).
There are very few devices (under 5) registered with Asterisk, so this
is not an overload issue.
Please find attached a SIP trace for device registration.
- What might cause this behavior in Asterisk ?
- Are there any config file parameters that require to be changed ?
- Would it help to see any other specific logs, if so which ones ?
Thanks and Regards,
Vikram.
Hi All,
Kamailio had just started to get SIP attacked and it looked like they were
sending a bad header and Kamailio died..
Nov 20 19:48:51 sipproxy sip[3383]: INFO: <script>: [R-MAIN =>] Request
method OPTIONS is to our domain (212.124.123.170)
Nov 20 19:48:51 sipproxy sip[3378]: INFO: <script>: [ROUTE-1] Received
registration from sip:1368250498@sipproxy (212.124.123.170)
Nov 20 19:48:51 sipproxy sip[3378]: INFO: <script>: [ROUTE-1 !] Credentials
invalid; issuing challenge
Nov 20 19:48:51 sipproxy sip[3381]: INFO: <script>: [ROUTE-1] Received
registration from sip:100@sipproxy (212.124.123.170)
Nov 20 19:48:51 sipproxy sip[3381]: INFO: <script>: [ROUTE-1 !] Credentials
invalid; issuing challenge
Nov 20 19:48:51 sipproxy sip[3374]: INFO: <core> [parser/msg_parser.c:339]:
ERROR: bad header field [CSeq: 1 REGISTER ACK]
Nov 20 19:48:51 sipproxy kernel: [1033573.401446] kamailio[3374]: segfault
at 18 ip b70070d9 sp bf916118 error 4 in topoh.so[b7004000+c000]
Nov 20 19:48:51 sipproxy sip[3373]: INFO: <core> [parser/msg_parser.c:339]:
ERROR: bad header field [CSeq: 1 REGISTER ACK]
Nov 20 19:48:51 sipproxy kernel: [1033573.636774] kamailio[3373]: segfault
at 18 ip b70070d9 sp bf916118 error 4 in topoh.so[b7004000+c000]
Nov 20 19:48:51 sipproxy sip[3388]: INFO: <core> [parser/msg_parser.c:339]:
ERROR: bad header field [CSeq: 1 REGISTER ACK]
Nov 20 19:48:51 sipproxy kernel: [1033573.680305] kamailio[3388]: segfault
at 18 ip b70070d9 sp bf916118 error 4 in topoh.so[b7004000+c000]
Nov 20 19:48:51 sipproxy sip[3390]: INFO: <core> [parser/msg_parser.c:339]:
ERROR: bad header field [CSeq: 1 REGISTER ACK]
Nov 20 19:48:51 sipproxy kernel: [1033573.710444] kamailio[3390]: segfault
at 18 ip b70070d9 sp bf916118 error 4 in topoh.so[b7004000+c000]
Nov 20 19:48:51 sipproxy sip[3383]: INFO: <script>: [ROUTE-1] Received
registration from sip:2478223614@sipproxy (212.124.123.170)
Nov 20 19:48:51 sipproxy sip[3383]: INFO: <script>: [ROUTE-1 !] Credentials
invalid; issuing challenge
Nov 20 19:48:51 sipproxy sip[3378]: INFO: <core> [parser/msg_parser.c:339]:
ERROR: bad header field [CSeq: 1 REGISTER ACK]
Nov 20 19:48:51 sipproxy kernel: [1033573.753334] kamailio[3378]: segfault
at 18 ip b70070d9 sp bf916118 error 4 in topoh.so[b7004000+c000]
Nov 20 19:48:51 sipproxy sip[3379]: INFO: <script>: [ROUTE-1] Received
registration from sip:noauth@sipproxy (212.124.123.170)
Nov 20 19:48:51 sipproxy sip[3379]: INFO: <script>: [ROUTE-1 !] Credentials
invalid; issuing challenge
Nov 20 19:48:51 sipproxy sip[3375]: INFO: <core> [parser/msg_parser.c:339]:
ERROR: bad header field [CSeq: 1 REGISTER ACK]
Nov 20 19:48:51 sipproxy kernel: [1033573.768137] kamailio[3375]: segfault
at 18 ip b70070d9 sp bf916118 error 4 in topoh.so[b7004000+c000]
Nov 20 19:48:51 sipproxy sip[3383]: INFO: <core> [parser/msg_parser.c:339]:
ERROR: bad header field [CSeq: 1 REGISTER ACK]
Nov 20 19:48:51 sipproxy kernel: [1033573.775628] kamailio[3383]: segfault
at 18 ip b70070d9 sp bf916118 error 4 in topoh.so[b7004000+c000]
Nov 20 19:48:51 sipproxy sip[3386]: INFO: <core> [parser/msg_parser.c:339]:
ERROR: bad header field [CSeq: 1 REGISTER ACK]
Nov 20 19:48:51 sipproxy kernel: [1033573.790925] kamailio[3386]: segfault
at 18 ip b70070d9 sp bf916118 error 4 in topoh.so[b7004000+c000]
Nov 20 19:48:51 sipproxy sip[3379]: INFO: <core> [parser/msg_parser.c:339]:
ERROR: bad header field [CSeq: 1 REGISTER ACK]
Nov 20 19:48:51 sipproxy kernel: [1033573.798926] kamailio[3379]: segfault
at 18 ip b70070d9 sp bf916118 error 4 in topoh.so[b7004000+c000]
Nov 20 19:48:51 sipproxy sip[3381]: INFO: <core> [parser/msg_parser.c:339]:
ERROR: bad header field [CSeq: 1 REGISTER ACK]
Nov 20 19:48:51 sipproxy kernel: [1033573.815493] kamailio[3381]: segfault
at 18 ip b70070d9 sp bf916118 error 4 in topoh.so[b7004000+c000]
Nov 20 19:48:54 sipproxy sip[3344]: INFO: <core> [main.c:737]: INFO:
terminating due to SIGCHLD
Nov 20 19:48:54 sipproxy sip[3399]: INFO: <core> [main.c:788]: INFO: signal
15 received
Nov 20 19:48:54 sipproxy sip[3396]: INFO: <core> [main.c:788]: INFO: signal
15 received
Nov 20 19:48:54 sipproxy sip[3400]: INFO: <core> [main.c:788]: INFO: signal
15 received
Nov 20 19:48:54 sipproxy sip[3392]: INFO: <core> [main.c:788]: INFO: signal
15 received
Nov 20 19:48:54 sipproxy sip[3401]: INFO: <core> [main.c:788]: INFO: signal
15 received
Nov 20 19:48:54 sipproxy sip[3394]: INFO: <core> [main.c:788]: INFO: signal
15 received
Nov 20 19:48:54 sipproxy sip[3402]: INFO: <core> [main.c:788]: INFO: signal
15 received
Thanks
Brian
Is it possible to reload a module such as siptrace without requiring a
full restart of kamailio. I have changed my db_url modparam for the
siptrace module and would like to avoid restarting kamailio if possible.
Thanks
Stagg
Hello, i have insalled a ser server sucessfully. To try it, we was registered by a softphone, but when i am calling to the another registered user, he hang the phone but we cant ear anything.
Can somebody help me?
Thanks
Hello my friends,
I wonder if someone has done this before? i would like to implement 2
Kamailio servers with redundancy, something like the following:
SERVER_A is working as the primary sip proxy (virtual IP as the sip
signaling), if it fails, the other server (sleeping) should UP the virtual
IP and takes all the traffic....i guess there is many Linux implementations
thah can do this, but i would like to know if there is someone that has done
this before and hear some recomendations...
I've read some difficulty in the synchronisation of registrations because
Kamailio works best when it stores registrations in memory and registrations
are constantly changing - they expire and are renewed, as well as new ones
joining and old ones leaving. To make the failover solution function
seamlessly, it is necessary to synchronise the in-memory registrations
between the primary and the backup server . This can be done by forking a
copy of the registration request to the backup server, but there are some
practical problems in doing this, has anyone do something with this?
Thanks in advance!
Hi
I am experimenting with a dual homed (IPv4 and IPv6) Openser 1.1.0-tls server.
If I register using a IPv6 address then the initial registration works
and the details are saved in the location table. However when the UA
trys to re-register on expiry the SIP returns a 200 OK but the
location data is not updated in the table. Looking at the syslog it is
reporting that it didn't save the data as there was an existing entry
on index with key 1. This is referring I presume to the primary index
on "username, domain, contact) on the location table.
So what happens is the first location entry expires and gets deleted
from the table and thus there is no record for the subsequent register
and thus openser thinks the UA has dropped off until the next
re-register when because there is no longer a location record the data
gets saved correctly.
This doesn't happen if I register the same UA on IPv4 on the same
openser server.
Anyone got any ideas why this is happening?
Regards
Jon
--
Jon Farmer
Tel: 07795 118140
Email: viperdudeuk(a)gmail.com
Twitter: @viperdudeuk
Hi all,
Hve anyone seen before the following error?
*Kamailio acc [acc.c:398]: failed to insert into database*
After a Kamailio restart it is ok but it start again afetr x time.
Thank you Alex
argh. I just mixed up the true/false return values in the eMail but you still got it :-)
Thanks a lot!
----- Original Message -----
From: Daniel-Constantin Mierla [mailto:miconda@gmail.com]
To: Bernhard Suttner [mailto:bernhard.suttner@winet.ch]
Cc: sr-users(a)lists.sip-router.org
Sent: Tue, 01 Feb 2011 20:31:17 +0100
Subject: Re: [SR-Users] t_local_replied() ?
> Hello,
>
> not sure if you ask about the options, or you tried them and don't give
> you the needed feature, since there are some improper true/false return
> codes in your email. t_branch_replied() will return false if the 408 is
> generated locally.
>
> Cheers,
> Daniel
>
> On 2/1/11 8:25 PM, Bernhard Suttner wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > just to be sure:
> >
> > - If the gateway does send back a 100 Trying and then a 408 is detected
> within failure_route the method t_branch_replied does return false (means:
> gateway is up and running) - dont go to next gateway (dispatcher)
> >
> > - If the gateway does not respond and a 408 is detected within
> failure_route (= 408 was generated from kamailio) t_branch_replied does
> return true (means: gateway is down) - go to the next gateway (dispatcher)
> >
> > Is that correct or am I wrong?
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Bernhard
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Daniel-Constantin Mierla [mailto:miconda@gmail.com]
> > To: Bernhard Suttner [mailto:bernhard.suttner@winet.ch]
> > Cc: sr-users(a)lists.sip-router.org
> > Sent: Tue, 01 Feb 2011 13:30:54 +0100
> > Subject: Re: [SR-Users] t_local_replied() ?
> >
> >
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> On 2/1/11 12:08 PM, Bernhard Suttner wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> I am using the dispatcher module and want to check within the
> >> failure_route if the 408 was internally generated from kamailio or it was
> >> received from the dispatcher gateway.
> >>> There was previously a function called t_local_replied() in the
> TM-module
> >> but I could not find this function in the current documentation. Was it
> >> removed?
> >>> Is there a alternative to check if the 408 was local generated or if it
> >> was received from the peer (= from the dispatcher gateway)?
> >> see the example of:
> >> http://kamailio.org/docs/modules/stable/modules/tm.html#t_branch_replied
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Daniel
> >>
> >> --
> >> Daniel-Constantin Mierla
> >> http://www.asipto.com
> >>
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
> --
> Daniel-Constantin Mierla
> http://www.asipto.com
>
>
Hi,
just to be sure:
- If the gateway does send back a 100 Trying and then a 408 is detected within failure_route the method t_branch_replied does return false (means: gateway is up and running) - dont go to next gateway (dispatcher)
- If the gateway does not respond and a 408 is detected within failure_route (= 408 was generated from kamailio) t_branch_replied does return true (means: gateway is down) - go to the next gateway (dispatcher)
Is that correct or am I wrong?
Best regards,
Bernhard
----- Original Message -----
From: Daniel-Constantin Mierla [mailto:miconda@gmail.com]
To: Bernhard Suttner [mailto:bernhard.suttner@winet.ch]
Cc: sr-users(a)lists.sip-router.org
Sent: Tue, 01 Feb 2011 13:30:54 +0100
Subject: Re: [SR-Users] t_local_replied() ?
> Hello,
>
> On 2/1/11 12:08 PM, Bernhard Suttner wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am using the dispatcher module and want to check within the
> failure_route if the 408 was internally generated from kamailio or it was
> received from the dispatcher gateway.
> >
> > There was previously a function called t_local_replied() in the TM-module
> but I could not find this function in the current documentation. Was it
> removed?
> >
> > Is there a alternative to check if the 408 was local generated or if it
> was received from the peer (= from the dispatcher gateway)?
> see the example of:
> http://kamailio.org/docs/modules/stable/modules/tm.html#t_branch_replied
>
> Cheers,
> Daniel
>
> --
> Daniel-Constantin Mierla
> http://www.asipto.com
>
>