sr-users February 2015

sr-users@lists.kamailio.org

95 participants
130 discussions

Kamailio - Asterisk, problem with SIP trunk mode

by Mickael MONSIEUR

Hello, First, i have 7 years experience with Asterisk, but I started a project with Kamailio, forgive me in advance if I say silly things...! ;-) I set up a classic Asterisk / Kamailio configuration: sip phones -> kamailio -> asterisk -> sip trunks/pstn. When a call comes from the PSTN side, if I configure Asterisk as follows: [012345678] type = friend username = 012345678 secret = xxxxxxx host = dynamic fromdomain = sip.mydomain.com fromuser = 012345678 Standard mode: exten => 012345678, 1, Dial(SIP/012345678) -> The call is redirected on the phone by Kamailio ! :-) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Trunk mode: [mytrunk] type = friend username = mytrunkUser secret = xxxxxxx host = dynamic fromdomain = sip.mydomain.com fromuser = mytrunkUser exten => 012345678, 1, Dial(SIP/mytrunk/012345678) -> The call is rejected by Kamailio.... exten => 012345679, 1, Dial(SIP/mytrunk/012345679) -> The call is rejected by Kamailio .... My question is how to allow the routing of multiple numbers (trunk mode) in a SIP account with Kamailio? Best regards, Mickael

8 years, 11 months

Kamailio IMS - VM

by Bruno Cruz

Hello everyone, My name is Bruno, I'm a student from Portugal studying IMS at the moment. I've been following tutorials online, trying to get Kamailio to work as an IMS core - I'm pretty much a newbie in this field. Unfortunantly I've been getting several errors and I can't seem to properly configure everything. I was wondering if there is a All-in-One VM that can be downloaded, with Kamailio ready to be used as an IMS core? Thanks in advance. Best regards, Bruno C.

9 years

Interpretation of Contact header

by Joachim Büchse

Good day, I’m experiencing some problems with our VoiP providers handling of REGISTER requests. We are using a Gigaset PRO N720 as UAC behind a Juniper SSG 140 with SIP-Alg enabled. This setup kind of works with UDP but our provider wants us to use TCP. With TCP enforced incoming calls don’t work. I’ve done some wire tracing and to me it seems that the providers configuration is to blame, but then - there are many RFCs out there and many NAT and UAC bug workarounds. Anyway, I wanted to get the opinion of “the" experts about how the requests send to the UAS SHOULD be correctly interpreted. The REGISTER requests/responses look like this (outside of the firewall): Protocol TCP! client port 19091 <-> server port 5060 REGISTER sip:pbx.peoplefone.ch SIP/2.0 Via: SIP/2.0/TCP 212.126.160.92:6717;rport;branch=z9hG4bKc1375589832468de63a719eac31156ec From: "Michel" <sip:90780408050@pbx.peoplefone.ch>;tag=2153084485 To: "Michel" <sip:90780408050@pbx.peoplefone.ch> Call-ID: 2825358480@10_10_128_10 CSeq: 1 REGISTER Contact: <sip:90780408050@212.126.160.92:6717;transport=tcp> Max-Forwards: 70 User-Agent: N720-DM-PRO/70.089.00.000.000 Expires: 180 Allow: INVITE, ACK, CANCEL, BYE, OPTIONS, INFO, REFER, SUBSCRIBE, NOTIFY Content-Length: 0 SIP/2.0 401 Unauthorized Via: SIP/2.0/TCP 212.126.160.92:6717;rport=19091;branch=z9hG4bKc1375589832468de63a719eac31156ec From: "Michel" <sip:90780408050@pbx.peoplefone.ch>;tag=2153084485 To: "Michel" <sip:90780408050@pbx.peoplefone.ch>;tag=a0440f545f39b2694d387b475a5f6bc9.b8fc Call-ID: 2825358480@10_10_128_10 CSeq: 1 REGISTER WWW-Authenticate: Digest realm="pbx.peoplefone.ch", nonce="VNqJBVTah9m57ZGGs8b5XCTM3GyaExDy" Server: kamailio (3.2.1 (x86_64/linux)) Content-Length: 0 REGISTER sip:pbx.peoplefone.ch SIP/2.0 Via: SIP/2.0/TCP 212.126.160.92:6717;rport;branch=z9hG4bK9c27afea96e2af4baab2f8d144a588e0 From: "Michel" <sip:90780408050@pbx.peoplefone.ch>;tag=2153084485 To: "Michel" <sip:90780408050@pbx.peoplefone.ch> Call-ID: 2825358480@10_10_128_10 CSeq: 2 REGISTER Contact: <sip:90780408050@212.126.160.92:6717;transport=tcp> Authorization: Digest username="90780408050", realm="pbx.peoplefone.ch", uri="sip:pbx.peoplefone.ch", nonce="VNqJBVTah9m57ZGGs8b5XCTM3GyaExDy", response="764f371a08d258157a249f8d1b852514" Max-Forwards: 70 User-Agent: N720-DM-PRO/70.089.00.000.000 Expires: 180 Allow: INVITE, ACK, CANCEL, BYE, OPTIONS, INFO, REFER, SUBSCRIBE, NOTIFY Content-Length: 0 SIP/2.0 200 OK Via: SIP/2.0/TCP 212.126.160.92:6717;rport=19091;branch=z9hG4bK9c27afea96e2af4baab2f8d144a588e0 From: "Michel" <sip:90780408050@pbx.peoplefone.ch>;tag=2153084485 To: "Michel" <sip:90780408050@pbx.peoplefone.ch>;tag=a0440f545f39b2694d387b475a5f6bc9.6bda Call-ID: 2825358480@10_10_128_10 CSeq: 2 REGISTER Contact: <sip:90780408050@212.126.160.92:6717;transport=tcp>;q=0;expires=180;received="sip:212.126.160.92:19091;transport=TCP" Server: kamailio (3.2.1 (x86_64/linux)) Content-Length: 0 The ip:port the firewall is sending those requests from is ip 212.126.160.92 port 19091. So this does NOT match the port from the Contact header. For TCP this seems rather logical to me, as one cant be listening on a TCP port and use it for sending at the same time. The UAC closes this “register connection” with TCP FIN after the register, and so does the firewall. However unfortunately subsequent requests from the provider (ie UAS) come in on port 19091 (not port 6717 from the Contact header) and the firewall simply drops them. Observations: - the server does NOT include received=212.126.160.92 in the Via of the reponse. According to RFC3581 this is mandatory when rport is present in the request, so this is probably an error in the server. - the server does include received="sip:212.126.160.92:19091;transport=TCP” in the Contact of the response. I didnt see this in any RFC (which means nothing;-) but it could be an error. - after the client received the 200 OK it closes the TCP connection. - the server tries several times to re-contact the client (incoming TCP SYN). However not on port 6717 (defined in the Contact header) but on port 19091 (where the REGISTER came from). RFC3581 defines special behaviour when “rport” is defined in the request (i.e. response should go to the same port the request came from) - however it’s not so clear if this should apply to subsequent (INVITE/OPTIONS) requests from the server to the client. Those are strictly spoken not replies (or are they?). RFC5626 defines that a “proxy” should keep track of the flows over which it received a registration and send requests over the same flow. It is not clear if RFC5626 should be applied. The RFC5626 defines that a UAC includes an “ob” parameter in the Contact field if it whishes further requests over the same flow. Also the RFC mandates a client to add a "reg-id=x" in the Contact field. Both are not the case here, so in short I think RFC5626 should NOT be applied. In which case conecting to the originating port (instead of the Contact port) would be a server error. So in short and if I interpret the RFCs correctly, the client is reachable and should be contacted on Transport: TCP IP: 212.126.160.92 Port: 6717 If anyone who lives and breathes SIP could enlighten me if the UAS is right to call back on 19091 instead of 6717 I would really appreciate it;-)) Best regards, Joachim

9 years, 3 months

[Kamailio-Users] HA+DRBD setup

by Siddhardha Garige

Hello all, Just wondering if anyone know any tutorial on setting up HA+DRBD solution for kamailio. Especially creating partitions, DRBD devices and mount points. Thanks in advance, -Sid "May the light be with you." ______________________________________________ Siddhardha Garige www.luminepixels.com

9 years, 4 months

topoh ACK Call-ID mismatch

by Daniel Tryba

Trying to call a T.38 enabled endpoint B from an endpoint A that doesn't. This results in a "488 Not Acceptable" from A. The kamailio (4.0.3) in between with topoh enabled (with mask_callid set to 1. Kamailio ACKs the 488 to A, but the ACK has the wrong (masked) Call-ID, resulting in the ACK to A being ignored, A keeps sending 488 at intervals before just dropping the call. My understanding is the Call-ID in the ACK has to be the same as the Call-ID from the 488. But instead of sending the unmasked Call-ID used in all other messages between A and Kamailio, the ACK contains the masked Call-ID used in all messagea between A and Kamailio. I can't find a bug report relating to this. Is this a known feature or maybe fixed in newer versions? A->Kamailio SIP/2.0 488 Not acceptable here. Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 109.235.32.40;branch=z9hG4bKf91a.c6c88747.0;received=109.235.32.40. Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 172.19.162.1;branch=pocos- rS4MusXox1l5QHyNxRy6uAXsEOdsxidSEAktxGZKWgeKCgeS- RrKEAy057Nl9DEpWpefZD6AhGtwWDJjEqeuEAZgZs5iZA7*. From: <sip:+31880100799@sip.pocos.nl:5060>;tag=as3869fe2a. To: "+31880100705" <sip:+31880100705@sip.pocos.nl>;tag=as1b0b8097. Call-ID: 0b5946b977210450571f767a19cd6fa0(a)99sip.pocos.nl. CSeq: 102 INVITE. Kamailio<-A ACK sip:+31880100705@109.235.32.48 SIP/2.0. Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 109.235.32.40;branch=z9hG4bKf91a.c6c88747.0. Max-Forwards: 16. From: <sip:+31880100799@sip.pocos.nl:5060>;tag=as3869fe2a. To: "+31880100705" <sip:+31880100705@sip.pocos.nl>;tag=as1b0b8097. Call-ID: !!:xqXtWRMpZAngEsX3xGMtxGrgxDZgEA9JxR4AzGz8ZRIyWR4sh.yomqlACgxoC8K*. CSeq: 102 ACK. -- Telefoon: 088 0100 700 Sales: sales(a)pocos.nl | Service: servicedesk(a)pocos.nl http://www.pocos.nl/ | Croy 9c, 5653 LC Eindhoven | Kamer van Koophandel 17097024

9 years, 7 months

Kamailio: MI Command: 'trusted_dump' and 'trusted_reload'

by José Luis Millán

Hi, I'm using 'allow_trusted()' from Permissions module without a problem in a Kamailio 4.0 routing logic. It does just work, but the MI command 'trusted_dump' tells me that the module is not in use: ''' server:/home/jmillan# kamctl fifo trusted_dump 500 Trusted-module not in use ''' Doing a 'trusted_reload' does neither make any query to database to retrieve the data. Other MI commands of same module do work correctly. ie: 'address_reload' or 'address_dump' Note: I have tested in a Kamailio 1.5 and the result is the same. Regards. -- José Luis Millán

9 years, 7 months

Recommendation for toggling MSILO m_store auto-notification reply on/off

by Anthony Messina

Using Kamailio 4.2-dev and MSILO, is it possible to "toggle" the auto- notification reply MESSAGE using something similar to the following where "$var(msilo_reply)" is emtpy at startup (or are there suggestions for a better method): modparam("msilo", "from_address", "$var(msilo_reply)") ... if(CONDITION WHERE I WANT THE AUTO-REPLY RETURNS POSITIVE) { $var(msilo_reply)="$rU(a)example.net"; } m_store($rU) ... My use case is that I would like the auto-notification reply to occur in some instances, but not others. I also do not want to create a loop where the auto-notification replies are also stored. I was originally using a simple test: if(src_ip!=myself), but I have begun to use the IMC module as well as the EXEC module and these MESSAGEs appear to originate from "myself." Looking at the MSILO documentation I see there is "extra_hdrs(string)," but this appears to be designed to add headers to dumped MESSAGEs. I was hoping there would be a way to add a custom header to the auto-notification, on which I could filter/drop generated replies earlier in the route, but it doesn't appear that this exists. My preference for the best-case scenario would be to control the generation of the auto-notification reply in the first place rather than having to add a control to detect the reply and drop it. Thanks in advance for any recommendations. -- Anthony - https://messinet.com/ - https://messinet.com/~amessina/gallery 8F89 5E72 8DF0 BCF0 10BE 9967 92DC 35DC B001 4A4E

9 years, 7 months

File transferring issue

by Wingsravi R

Dear Kamailio'ns, I am working on kamailio Server (V 4.0) installed on Ubuntu 12.04 system. Currently i am trying file transfer feature using IMSDroid SIP clients. file transferring is fine between two IMSDroid clients but at the receiving end (file recipient) i cont see the sender identity/ sender name. it is just displaying as 'null' (Screen shot is attached). But the full file is transferring to destination address without any problem. I have configured MSRP module related script in my kamailio configuration file (find the attachment). but i guess it is not invoking anyway when file transferring and the file transferring is negotiating client-to-client basis. And also find Sip capture of file transfer (ngrep based) for better understanding. What could be the problem? Why at the file recipient side it is not displaying sender's identity (instead it is 'null')? how can i resolve this issue? Anyone please help me in resolving this issue. Any help will greatly appreciate. Regards, Ravi.

9 years, 8 months

Kamailio IMS: can not register

by dfretes＠ing.una.py

Hi all. I'm trying to setup Kamailio for IMS server, but I've reached a point where I can not move. Trying to register from the Boghe client, I get these errors from the pcscf: tail -f /var/log/syslog|grep './pcscf' Jan 29 22:36:29 kamailioast ./pcscf[3841]: ERROR: *** cfgtrace:request_route=[DE FAULT_ROUTE] c=[/etc/kamailio/pcscf/kamailio.cfg] l=402 a=25 n=xlog Jan 29 22:36:29 kamailioast ./pcscf[3841]: ERROR: <script>: REGISTER (sip:alice@ open-ims.test (192.168.1.105:62044) to sip:alice@open-ims.test, 20236156-7eed-01 e4-daac-5072e67f99e9) Jan 29 22:36:29 kamailioast ./pcscf[3841]: ERROR: *** cfgtrace:request_route=[DE FAULT_ROUTE] c=[/etc/kamailio/pcscf/kamailio.cfg] l=414 a=5 n=route Jan 29 22:36:29 kamailioast ./pcscf[3841]: ERROR: *** cfgtrace:request_route=[RE QINIT] c=[/etc/kamailio/pcscf/kamailio.cfg] l=594 a=16 n=if Jan 29 22:36:29 kamailioast ./pcscf[3841]: ERROR: *** cfgtrace:request_route=[RE QINIT] c=[/etc/kamailio/pcscf/kamailio.cfg] l=576 a=24 n=has_totag Jan 29 22:36:29 kamailioast ./pcscf[3841]: ERROR: *** cfgtrace:request_route=[RE QINIT] c=[/etc/kamailio/pcscf/kamailio.cfg] l=584 a=16 n=if Jan 29 22:36:29 kamailioast ./pcscf[3841]: ERROR: *** cfgtrace:request_route=[RE QINIT] c=[/etc/kamailio/pcscf/kamailio.cfg] l=590 a=16 n=if Jan 29 22:36:29 kamailioast ./pcscf[3841]: ERROR: *** cfgtrace:request_route=[RE QINIT] c=[/etc/kamailio/pcscf/kamailio.cfg] l=584 a=24 n=pike_check_req Jan 29 22:36:29 kamailioast ./pcscf[3841]: ERROR: *** cfgtrace:request_route=[RE QINIT] c=[/etc/kamailio/pcscf/kamailio.cfg] l=606 a=16 n=if Jan 29 22:36:29 kamailioast ./pcscf[3841]: ERROR: *** cfgtrace:request_route=[RE QINIT] c=[/etc/kamailio/pcscf/kamailio.cfg] l=611 a=16 n=if Jan 29 22:36:29 kamailioast ./pcscf[3841]: ERROR: *** cfgtrace:request_route=[RE QINIT] c=[/etc/kamailio/pcscf/kamailio.cfg] l=606 a=25 n=mf_process_maxfwd_heade r Jan 29 22:36:29 kamailioast ./pcscf[3841]: ERROR: *** cfgtrace:request_route=[RE QINIT] c=[/etc/kamailio/pcscf/kamailio.cfg] l=617 a=16 n=if Jan 29 22:36:29 kamailioast ./pcscf[3841]: ERROR: *** cfgtrace:request_route=[RE QINIT] c=[/etc/kamailio/pcscf/kamailio.cfg] l=611 a=26 n=sanity_check Jan 29 22:36:29 kamailioast ./pcscf[3841]: ERROR: *** cfgtrace:request_route=[RE QINIT] c=[/etc/kamailio/pcscf/kamailio.cfg] l=623 a=16 n=if Jan 29 22:36:29 kamailioast ./pcscf[3841]: ERROR: *** cfgtrace:request_route=[RE QINIT] c=[/etc/kamailio/pcscf/kamailio.cfg] l=617 a=24 n=has_totag Jan 29 22:36:29 kamailioast ./pcscf[3841]: ERROR: *** cfgtrace:request_route=[RE QINIT] c=[/etc/kamailio/pcscf/kamailio.cfg] l=629 a=16 n=if Jan 29 22:36:29 kamailioast ./pcscf[3841]: ERROR: *** cfgtrace:request_route=[RE QINIT] c=[/etc/kamailio/pcscf/kamailio.cfg] l=623 a=25 n=is_method Jan 29 22:36:29 kamailioast ./pcscf[3841]: ERROR: *** cfgtrace:request_route=[RE QINIT] c=[/etc/kamailio/pcscf/kamailio.cfg] l=633 a=16 n=if Jan 29 22:36:29 kamailioast ./pcscf[3841]: ERROR: *** cfgtrace:request_route=[RE QINIT] c=[/etc/kamailio/pcscf/kamailio.cfg] l=629 a=24 n=t_lookup_request Jan 29 22:36:29 kamailioast ./pcscf[3841]: ERROR: *** cfgtrace:request_route=[RE QINIT] c=[/etc/kamailio/pcscf/kamailio.cfg] l=636 a=16 n=if Jan 29 22:36:29 kamailioast ./pcscf[3841]: ERROR: *** cfgtrace:request_route=[RE QINIT] c=[/etc/kamailio/pcscf/kamailio.cfg] l=633 a=25 n=is_method Jan 29 22:36:29 kamailioast ./pcscf[3841]: ERROR: *** cfgtrace:request_route=[RE QINIT] c=[/etc/kamailio/pcscf/kamailio.cfg] l=634 a=26 n=send_reply Jan 29 22:36:29 kamailioast ./pcscf[3841]: ERROR: *** cfgtrace:request_route=[DE FAULT_ROUTE] c=[/etc/kamailio/pcscf/kamailio.cfg] l=417 a=5 n=route Jan 29 22:36:29 kamailioast ./pcscf[3841]: ERROR: *** cfgtrace:request_route=[NA T] c=[/etc/kamailio/pcscf/kamailio.cfg] l=673 a=55 n=force_rport Jan 29 22:36:29 kamailioast ./pcscf[3841]: ERROR: *** cfgtrace:request_route=[NA T] c=[/etc/kamailio/pcscf/kamailio.cfg] l=694 a=16 n=if Jan 29 22:36:29 kamailioast ./pcscf[3841]: ERROR: *** cfgtrace:request_route=[NA T] c=[/etc/kamailio/pcscf/kamailio.cfg] l=675 a=25 n=nat_uac_test Jan 29 22:36:29 kamailioast ./pcscf[3841]: ERROR: *** cfgtrace:request_route=[NA T] c=[/etc/kamailio/pcscf/kamailio.cfg] l=679 a=16 n=if Jan 29 22:36:29 kamailioast ./pcscf[3841]: ERROR: *** cfgtrace:request_route=[NA T] c=[/etc/kamailio/pcscf/kamailio.cfg] l=676 a=25 n=is_method Jan 29 22:36:29 kamailioast ./pcscf[3841]: ERROR: *** cfgtrace:request_route=[NA T] c=[/etc/kamailio/pcscf/kamailio.cfg] l=679 a=39 n=setflag Jan 29 22:36:29 kamailioast ./pcscf[3841]: ERROR: *** cfgtrace:request_route=[NA T] c=[/etc/kamailio/pcscf/kamailio.cfg] l=687 a=16 n=if Jan 29 22:36:29 kamailioast ./pcscf[3841]: ERROR: *** cfgtrace:request_route=[NA T] c=[/etc/kamailio/pcscf/kamailio.cfg] l=680 a=25 n=is_method Jan 29 22:36:29 kamailioast ./pcscf[3841]: ERROR: *** cfgtrace:request_route=[NA T] c=[/etc/kamailio/pcscf/kamailio.cfg] l=681 a=24 n=set_contact_alias Jan 29 22:36:29 kamailioast ./pcscf[3841]: ERROR: *** cfgtrace:request_route=[NA T] c=[/etc/kamailio/pcscf/kamailio.cfg] l=683 a=26 n=xlog Jan 29 22:36:29 kamailioast ./pcscf[3841]: ERROR: *** cfgtrace:request_route=[NA T] c=[/etc/kamailio/pcscf/kamailio.cfg] l=684 a=24 n=nat_keepalive Jan 29 22:36:29 kamailioast ./pcscf[3841]: ERROR: *** cfgtrace:request_route=[NA T] c=[/etc/kamailio/pcscf/kamailio.cfg] l=694 a=2 n=return Jan 29 22:36:29 kamailioast ./pcscf[3841]: ERROR: *** cfgtrace:request_route=[DE FAULT_ROUTE] c=[/etc/kamailio/pcscf/kamailio.cfg] l=424 a=16 n=if Jan 29 22:36:29 kamailioast ./pcscf[3841]: ERROR: *** cfgtrace:request_route=[DE FAULT_ROUTE] c=[/etc/kamailio/pcscf/kamailio.cfg] l=420 a=25 n=is_method Jan 29 22:36:29 kamailioast ./pcscf[3841]: ERROR: *** cfgtrace:request_route=[DE FAULT_ROUTE] c=[/etc/kamailio/pcscf/kamailio.cfg] l=458 a=16 n=if Jan 29 22:36:29 kamailioast ./pcscf[3841]: ERROR: *** cfgtrace:request_route=[DE FAULT_ROUTE] c=[/etc/kamailio/pcscf/kamailio.cfg] l=424 a=24 n=has_totag Jan 29 22:36:29 kamailioast ./pcscf[3841]: ERROR: *** cfgtrace:request_route=[DE FAULT_ROUTE] c=[/etc/kamailio/pcscf/kamailio.cfg] l=465 a=16 n=if Jan 29 22:36:29 kamailioast ./pcscf[3841]: ERROR: *** cfgtrace:request_route=[DE FAULT_ROUTE] c=[/etc/kamailio/pcscf/kamailio.cfg] l=458 a=25 n=is_method Jan 29 22:36:29 kamailioast ./pcscf[3841]: ERROR: *** cfgtrace:request_route=[DE FAULT_ROUTE] c=[/etc/kamailio/pcscf/kamailio.cfg] l=465 a=24 n=t_check_trans Jan 29 22:36:29 kamailioast ./pcscf[3841]: ERROR: *** cfgtrace:request_route=[DE FAULT_ROUTE] c=[/etc/kamailio/pcscf/kamailio.cfg] l=472 a=16 n=if Jan 29 22:36:29 kamailioast ./pcscf[3841]: ERROR: *** cfgtrace:request_route=[DE FAULT_ROUTE] c=[/etc/kamailio/pcscf/kamailio.cfg] l=467 a=25 n=is_method Jan 29 22:36:29 kamailioast ./pcscf[3841]: ERROR: *** cfgtrace:request_route=[DE FAULT_ROUTE] c=[/etc/kamailio/pcscf/kamailio.cfg] l=468 a=5 n=route Jan 29 22:36:29 kamailioast ./pcscf[3841]: ERROR: *** cfgtrace:request_route=[RE GISTER] c=[/etc/kamailio/pcscf/kamailio.cfg] l=812 a=16 n=if Jan 29 22:36:29 kamailioast ./pcscf[3841]: ERROR: *** cfgtrace:request_route=[RE GISTER] c=[/etc/kamailio/pcscf/kamailio.cfg] l=810 a=25 n=is_present_hf Jan 29 22:36:29 kamailioast ./pcscf[3841]: ERROR: *** cfgtrace:request_route=[RE GISTER] c=[/etc/kamailio/pcscf/kamailio.cfg] l=811 a=25 n=pcscf_save_pending Jan 29 22:36:29 kamailioast ./pcscf[3841]: ERROR: *** cfgtrace:request_route=[RE GISTER] c=[/etc/kamailio/pcscf/kamailio.cfg] l=812 a=25 n=t_on_reply Jan 29 22:36:29 kamailioast ./pcscf[3841]: ERROR: *** cfgtrace:request_route=[RE GISTER] c=[/etc/kamailio/pcscf/kamailio.cfg] l=813 a=25 n=t_on_failure Jan 29 22:36:29 kamailioast ./pcscf[3841]: ERROR: *** cfgtrace:request_route=[RE GISTER] c=[/etc/kamailio/pcscf/kamailio.cfg] l=861 a=16 n=if Jan 29 22:36:29 kamailioast ./pcscf[3841]: ERROR: *** cfgtrace:request_route=[RE GISTER] c=[/etc/kamailio/pcscf/kamailio.cfg] l=856 a=25 n=is_present_hf Jan 29 22:36:29 kamailioast ./pcscf[3841]: ERROR: *** cfgtrace:request_route=[RE GISTER] c=[/etc/kamailio/pcscf/kamailio.cfg] l=860 a=25 n=append_hf Jan 29 22:36:29 kamailioast ./pcscf[3841]: ERROR: *** cfgtrace:request_route=[RE GISTER] c=[/etc/kamailio/pcscf/kamailio.cfg] l=872 a=24 n=t_relay Jan 29 22:36:29 kamailioast ./pcscf[3841]: ERROR: *** cfgtrace:request_route=[RE GISTER] c=[/etc/kamailio/pcscf/kamailio.cfg] l=873 a=2 n=exit Jan 29 22:36:39 kamailioast ./pcscf[3845]: ERROR: *** cfgtrace:failure_route=[RE GISTER_failure] c=[/etc/kamailio/pcscf/kamailio.cfg] l=910 a=16 n=if Jan 29 22:36:39 kamailioast ./pcscf[3845]: ERROR: *** cfgtrace:failure_route=[RE GISTER_failure] c=[/etc/kamailio/pcscf/kamailio.cfg] l=908 a=25 n=t_check_status Jan 29 22:36:39 kamailioast ./pcscf[3845]: ERROR: *** cfgtrace:failure_route=[RE GISTER_failure] c=[/etc/kamailio/pcscf/kamailio.cfg] l=909 a=26 n=send_reply All the time, this messages from the scscf: tail -f /var/log/syslog|grep './scscf' Jan 29 23:50:55 kamailioast ./scscf[3874]: INFO: cdp [peermanager.c:278]: peer_timer(): peer_timer(): Peer hss.open-ims.test #011State 6 Jan 29 23:50:55 kamailioast ./scscf[3874]: WARNING: cdp [peermanager.c:313]: peer_timer(): Inactivity on peer [hss.open-ims.test], sending DWR... - if we don't get a reply, the peer will be closed and nothing from the icscf. Thank you very much for any advice, I've run out of ideas.

9 years, 8 months

Dialog order of operations

by Alex Balashov

Hi, The dialog module documentation remains unclear about the order of operations with regard to when to call dlg_manage() or set the transaction flag. My impression is that dlg_manage() only registered TM callbacks, so it doesn't matter when you call it, as long as it's before t_relay(). However, the documentation neither confirms nor denies this. So, this raises the questions: 1) Is this okay? set_dlg_profile("caller", "$fU"); dlg_manage(); ... t_relay(); Or do I need to do this? dlg_manage(); set_dlg_profile("caller", "$fU"); ... t_relay(); 2) What about setting dialog-persistent variables? Is this okay? $dlg_var(account_id) = 49555; dlg_manage(); If so, where does the variable go if I never call dlg_manage() because the call is aborted beforehand, e.g. $dlg_var(account_id) = 49555; sl_send_reply("403", "Forbidden"); exit; dlg_manage(); ... t_relay(); 3) Any other gotchas or caveats in relation to the order of operations? I suppose my preference would be to set the dialog profiles in various places throughout call processing and call dlg_manage() at the very end, right before t_relay(). Is this acceptable? Thanks, -- Alex -- Alex Balashov - Principal Evariste Systems LLC 235 E Ponce de Leon Ave Suite 106 Decatur, GA 30030 United States Tel: +1-678-954-0670 Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/, http://www.alexbalashov.com/

9 years, 8 months

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

sr-users February 2015