sr-users June 2015

sr-users@lists.kamailio.org

82 participants
136 discussions

Not found error when Siremis login
by Chathura Senanayake 17 Jun '15

17 Jun '15

Hello, I need a help with siremis-4.2.0. When I try to login the the Siremis, it shows a 404 Not found error message as follow. Not Found The requested URL /siremis/system/general_default was not found on this server. ------------------------------ *Chathura Senanayake* Associate Software Engineer (DA) hSenid Mobile Solutions *Head Office* (Singapore)*P*: +65 65 332 140*M*: *F*: +65 62 910 023 *R&D* (Sri Lanka)*P*: +94 11 268 3751*M*: +94 71 757 9646*F*: +94 11 268 3951 <http://www.hsenidmobile.com/> <http://www.hsenidmobile.com/> <https://www.facebook.com/hSenidMobileSolutions> <https://twitter.com/hSenidMobile> <http://www.linkedin.com/company/hsenid-mobile-solutions-pvt-ltd> <https://plus.google.com/u/0/116242841237814090103/posts> <http://www.youtube.com/user/hSenidmobile>*www.hSenidMobile.com* <http://www.hsenidmobile.com/>

1 0

Kamailio Crash
by Marc Soda 17 Jun '15

17 Jun '15

Is it normal for Kamailio to segfault on a duplicate key in the usrloc DB? Jun 15 18:15:23 vproxy2 /usr/sbin/kamailio[13646]: ERROR: db_mysql [km_dbase.c:122]: db_mysql_submit_query(): driver error on query: Duplicate entry 'uloc-557a96c1-3577-4e5f1' for key 'ruid_idx' Jun 15 18:15:23 vproxy2 /usr/sbin/kamailio[13646]: ERROR: <core> [db_query.c:337]: db_do_update(): error while submitting query Jun 15 18:15:23 vproxy2 /usr/sbin/kamailio[13646]: ERROR: usrloc [ucontact.c:800]: db_update_ucontact_addr(): updating database failed Jun 15 18:15:23 vproxy2 /usr/sbin/kamailio[13646]: ERROR: usrloc [urecord.c:368]: wb_timer(): updating contact in db failed (aor: sip305_isibmp) I believe that there should never be a duplicate key. I'm not sure how that's happening either. I have 3 Kamailio boxes in a cluster replicating registrations to each other and using a MySQL Galara cluster for the usrloc DB. This is Kamailio 4.0.6. Thanks, Marc

4 4

loose_route to find transport=tcp
by Ryan Kendrick 16 Jun '15

16 Jun '15

We are using Kamailio 4.2.5 as a registrar and proxy between many dispersed end-users of a soft phone app and our calling platform / switch. Until now we have used udp exclusively but are trying to introduce tcp between end-users and Kamailio, leaving udp between Kam and our switch...while maintaining the ability for some end-users to use udp to Kam. With some simple address checks I am able to always send to our switch over udp. If all end-users used tcp I could send everything else tcp, but I need to maintain udp support. The specific problem I am having is on a reINVITE such as this one from our platform to the a-leg: INVITE sip:xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx:42679;user=phone SIP/2.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP xxxxxxxxxxxxx:5060;branch=z9hG4bK218cc8e12ll5035f67INV6a67885312aad Max-Forwards: 35 Route: <sip:xxxxxxxxxxx;lr;r2=on;ftag=daba971c;did=b57.4872;nat=yes> Route: <sip:xxxxxxxxxxx:5070;transport=tcp;lr;r2=on;ftag=daba971c;did=b57.4872;nat=yes> Contact: <sip:xxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx:5060> To: "xxxxxx"<sip:xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:5070>;tag=daba971c From: <sip:xxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx :5070>;tag=6a678853-co76461-INS002 Call-ID: MDI4ZmFjNmZhN2Y1NWE2ZTViNTkyZGUwNWE2YzUzYmU CSeq: 7646101 INVITE Allow: INVITE,ACK,CANCEL,BYE,REFER,OPTIONS,NOTIFY,SUBSCRIBE,PRACK,INFO,UPDATE Content-Type: application/sdp Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 20:10:18 GMT User-Agent: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Content-Length: 262 As you might notice, we have rr:enable_double_rr set: *There are some situations when the server needs to insert two Record-Route header fields instead of one. For example when using two disconnected networks or doing cross-protocol forwarding from UDP->TCP. This parameter enables inserting of 2 Record-Routes. The server will later remove both of them. * and I believe it is necessary to keep this way. Without it Kamailio doesn't even see the reINVITE...the switch probably tries tcp and that's not setup between the two. The invite above is sent to the a-leg over udp but I would expect and need it to be tcp in this case. The reINVITE is part of an existing dialog. We call loose_route() followed by some simple bflag setting and flag checking, t_on_reply(), ... then t_relay(). I do have a functional workaround but would prefer to avoid such manual handling by utilizing built-in functionality properly. # # relay the message # if(route(TEST_TOGW)) { if (!t_relay_to_udp()) { sl_reply_error(); } } else { if ($(hdr(Route)[-1]) =~ "tcp") { if(!t_relay_to_tcp()) { sl_reply_error(); } } else if (!t_relay()) { sl_reply_error(); } } I'm not 100% sure how reliable or fast this will be, but it does work so far in my simple tests. Is loose_route supposed to see and use the transport=tcp but isn't for some reason? It seems like the right thing to do to me. If not, is there anything else I can/should be doing in the tm and/or rr modules to make Kamailio realize it needs to send this message over TCP? If not in those two modules is there some recommended way perhaps via registrar or usrloc etc. to make Kamailio remember/store when a user is connected via TCP and be able to do a quick lookup before sending to them? Anything else I'm missing or not thinking of? Please let me know if I can further explain and rest assured any assistance will be much appreciated!!!

1 0

Keep-Alive in dialog "freeing a free fragment"
by Dirk Teurlings - SIGNET B.V. 16 Jun '15

16 Jun '15

Hi, (Kamailio 4.2.3) Working to get dialogs closed and cleaned up nicely I'm looking into the ka_interval and ka_timer parameter of the dialog module. The following is now happening. Scenario: 1. Call gets setup 2. Callee's internet connection drops 3. Call gets terminated (nicely) due to ka_timer/ka_interval 4. Log fills with "freeing a free fragment" after about 10 seconds Digging into this I saw that the dialog is being closed and cleaned properly in step 3. But it fails to remove/clean the timers used for the keep-alive. That's what triggers step 4, which in turn tries to clean the (or some of the) dialog space again. Is this expected behaviour when using the keep-alive options, or am I running into somekind of (known) bug? Thanks in advance for any help. -- Cheers, Dirk Teurlings

2 12

CANCEL request and subsequent 487 response to INVTE configuration problem
by Joao Alves 16 Jun '15

16 Jun '15

Hi, I'm creating a configuration is for a SIP <> HTTP gateway (performing protocol conversion) and thus all SIP messages and responses needs to be generated from the kamailio config file. I'm failing to create the case where the calling user abandons the session, and thus, following the reception of a CANCEL a 200 "OK" needs to be sent to this transaction and later the 487 "Request Terminated" to the SIP INVITE original session. On the traces I see: SIP INVITE (Cseq 1 INVITE) --> 100 Trying (Cseq 1 INVITE) <-- 180 Ringing (Cseq 1 INVITE) <-- SIP CANCEL (Cseq 1 CANCEL) --> 200 Ok (CSeq 1 CANCEL) <-- 487 Request Terminated (CSeq 1 CANCEL) Have then tried several options, trying to force the CSeq 1 INVITE but without success. t_reply_callid("$ci", "$cs", "487", " Request Terminated "); t_reply_callid("$ci", "$rm", "487", "Request Terminated"); t_reply_callid("$ci", "1", "487", "Request Terminated"); For instance, for the last I get the following log. 6(60226) exec: *** cfgtrace:request_route=[REQINIT] c=[/etc/kamailio/kamailio.cfg] l=705 a=28 n=t_reply_callid 6(60226) DEBUG: tm [t_lookup.c:1715]: t_lookup_callid(): created comparable call_id header field: >Call-ID: 76589ZTJmNTAwZDhlOTZiM2I3MjhhYzllNjgyOWVjZGZmMzk < 6(60226) DEBUG: tm [t_lookup.c:1719]: t_lookup_callid(): created comparable cseq header field: >CSeq: 1 INVITE< 6(60226) DEBUG: tm [t_lookup.c:1722]: t_lookup_callid(): just locked hash index 18668, looking for transactions there: 6(60226) DEBUG: tm [t_lookup.c:1749]: t_lookup_callid(): DEBUG: t_lookup_callid: transaction not found. 6(60226) DEBUG: tmx [tmx_mod.c:500]: t_reply_callid(): Lookup failed - no transaction Could you assist here? Thanks, Joao Joao Alves Solution Architect, Unified Communications +351 214094660 (desk) +351 912783702 (mobile) AMDOCS | EMBRACE CHALLENGE EXPERIENCE SUCCESS This message and the information contained herein is proprietary and confidential and subject to the Amdocs policy statement, you may review at http://www.amdocs.com/email_disclaimer.asp

2 4

Kamailio license usage
by Alexandru Covalschi 15 Jun '15

15 Jun '15

Maybe it may be an offtopic, but I'm not really into legal issues - so I'm sorry if this message is not fully related to this mailing list. Can I use Kamailio to provide VoIP backend for kind of CRM system in case of SaaS? --- Alexandru Covalschi ABRISS-Solutions VoIP engineer and system administrator phone: +37367398493 web: http://abs-telecom.com/

3 3

Re: [SR-Users] Kamailio number of LCR rules
by Juha Heinanen 15 Jun '15

15 Jun '15

Henry Fernandes writes: > But we didn¹t want to add hundreds of thousands or millions of extra rules > just to deal with this problem. We didn¹t consider that a good > workaround. OK, I got it. Now priorities choose from equally long prefixes instead of all matching prefixes. I'll take a look at the code to check if the latter could be easily added as an option. -- Juha

1 1

Re: [SR-Users] Kamailio number of LCR rules
by Juha Heinanen 15 Jun '15

15 Jun '15

Henry Fernandes writes: > Let’s say you have the following info in your LCR. > > Prefix, Carrier/Route, Rate > 1306, A, 1.5 > 1306343, A, 1.7 > 1306, B, 1.4 > > If you have phone number 13063431111, the LCR module matches it to the > longest prefix (1306343) and routes the call to Carrier A. However, that > is incorrect. It should match it to Carrier B which is the cheapest. > Carrier B has provided a rate of 1.4 for all calls with prefix 1306. why can't you add rule 1306343, B, 1.4 to solve the problem? -- juha

2 1

Kamailio number of LCR rules
by Ali Taher 15 Jun '15

15 Jun '15

Hello, I'm testing LCR module in Kamailio and everything works as expected so far. Before going further , I just want to ask about how much rule in LCR_rule table and target in LCR_rule_target can Kamailio support . We are dealing with hundreds of millions of rules and targets. Kindly advise if Kamailio can support this number of rules. Thanks Ali

3 4

Removing parameters from user part of URI
by Alex Balashov 15 Jun '15

15 Jun '15

Hi, If I have an RURI like this: INVITE sip:4045551212;param=xyz@domain:port SIP/2.0 which transformations can I best string together in order to remove the ';param=xyz' bit and extract just the core user part value (4045551212)? {uri.user} returns '4045551212;param=xyz'. There are numerous transformations to help one access the parameters. What if I want to exclude the parameters? I've already scoured the available transformations, just hoping a second pair of eyes can tell me I've missed something useful. Cheers, -- Alex -- Alex Balashov | Principal | Evariste Systems LLC 303 Perimeter Center North, Suite 300 Atlanta, GA 30346 United States Tel: +1-800-250-5920 (toll-free) / +1-678-954-0671 (direct) Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/, http://www.csrpswitch.com/

5 19

← Newer
1
...
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Older →

Jump to page:

2025

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 June 2015