Hello,
I'm using RTPproxy for the first time in bridged mode and I can't get kamailio/rtpproxy to rewrite the c parameter to the correct public ip address of kamailio.
The setup is as following:
Carrier ------[fiber]------ Kamailio ---------[lan]--------- Freeswitch
Kamailio is listening on two interfaces:
1) Private: 172.0.0.1
2) Public: 192.168.0.1 (since we have a dedicated fiber with our carrier, this is its public address)
Freeswitch is listening on:
1) 172.0.0.2
Carrier is on:
1) 10.0.0.1
I've started an rtpproxy instance on the Kamailio box using:
rtpproxy -s udp:127.0.0.1:7721 -u rtpproxy rtpproxy -p /var/run/rtpproxy/rtpproxy.pid -l 192.168.0.1 172.0.0.1
I've played around with rtpproxy_manage() and the various flags (ie, ei), but I can't get kamailio to set the correct public IP when the 200 OK has to be sent back to the carrier.
It always sets it to its private address, instead of its public address.
I'm using Kamailio 4.2 with sippy/rtpproxy 2.0.
Could someone please point me into the right direction?
Thanks!
Grant
Dear friends,
I am working on a program on Kamailio and rtpengine proxy. I am wondering whether can I set Kamailio and rtpengine daemon on different physical machines. For example, I set Kamailio on a machine with IP address:10.109.247.80, and launch rtpengine daemon on another machine with interface parameter as 10.109.247.90 and ng port 7723. I set parameter in Kamailio.cfg with modparam(“rtpengine”, “rtpengine_sock”, “udp:10.109.247.90:7723”).
Unfortunately I got debug message like this:
ERROR: rtpengine [rtpengine.c:1710]: send_rtpp_command(): can't send command to a RTP proxy
ERROR: rtpengine [rtpengine.c:1746]: send_rtpp_command(): proxy <udp:10.109.247.90:7723> does not respond, disable it
ERROR: rtpengine [rtpengine.c:1616]: rtpp_test(): proxy did not respond to ping
And, I also tried to set Kamailio and rtpengine daemon in a same machine,and use modparam(“rtpengine”, “rtpengine_sock”, “udp:localhost:7723”). And Kamailio can work functionally under this situation. rtpengine daemon can receive ping message from Kamailio and rtpengine daemon can work as suspected. So for the later case, is it supposed that Kamailio be in the same machine with same localhost address? Otherwise, what’s the reason for my ERROR?
------------------------------------
北京邮电大学网络技术研究院
网络与交换技术国家重点实验室
田军
+86 18810315790
mozillafire(a)bupt.edu.cn
------------------------------------
Hey all,
I'm looking to put Kamailio behind a TCP load balancer that is SIP-unaware.
My application is deployed in AWS and I'm tying to place Kamailio behind an
ELB.
For the most part, everything is fine. For my specific implementation I'm
disabling UDP as a signaling transport and using only TLS. This enables me
to not have to worry about a SIP-aware LB at the edge because replies to an
incoming request will be sent over the existing established TCP socket
(avoiding any crazy routing requirements).
However - this poses an issue with source addresses. Does Kamailio support
anything like the proxy protocol (
http://www.haproxy.org/download/1.5/doc/proxy-protocol.txt) for getting TCP
stream information from a load balancer? Do I need to go back to exposing
it directly to the world so that I can get source addresses?
Thanks,
Colin
Hi List,
two questions regarding Kamailio Websockets:
1. How do I send INVITE request TO the listening Websocket?
I usually used for UDP/TCP/TLS these format, but somehow this is not working for Websocket because it gets in an endless loop:
if ($rU=~"^(\+|00|0)?[1-9][0-9]{4,20}$") {
$ru = "sip:" + $rU + "@" + $sel(cfg_get.pstn.gw_ip) + ";user=phone;transport=udp";
force_send_socket(udp:MY_EXTERN_IP:MY_EXTERN_PORT);
rtpengine_offer("internal trust-address RTP AVP");
route(RELAY);
exit;
}
2. Why do I get these errors every time my Websocket Client is registering, but it still works and DB is inserted with registered location:
ERROR: <core> [parser/parse_fline.c:257]: parse_first_line(): parse_first_line: bad message (offset: 22)
ERROR: <core> [parser/msg_parser.c:690]: parse_msg(): ERROR: parse_msg: message=<HTTP/1.1 101 Switching Protocols#015#012Sia: SIP/2.0/TCP 10.250.5.17:51283#015#012Sec-WebSocket-Protocol: sip#015#012Upgrade: websocket#015#012Connection: upgrade#015#012Sec-WebSocket-Accept: 6uLXlD/aBrzu/j3PYP3DWO7rvLE=#015#012Server: kamailio (4.3.5 (x86_64/linux))#015#012Content-Length: 0#015#012#015#012>
I am using Kamailio 4.3.5 + CentOS 7.2. I appreciate every help I can get.
Best Regards
Dimitry Nagorny
Trainee
Any help?
From: Pranathi Venkatayogi
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2017 2:35 PM
To: 'Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List' <sr-users(a)lists.sip-router.org>
Subject: How to determine correct port to set in record-route header
Hi,
I am using Kamailio behind NAT, unable to figure how to make it put “public ip” in Record-route header, I am manually inserting the hard-coded header myself as below.
However now I am having trouble choosing the right port number in all scenarios.
$var(dstPort) = 5061;
if (dst_port==5060)
{
$var(dstPort) = 5060;
}
insert_hf("Record-Route: <sip:MY_PUBLICIP_ADDR:$var(dstPort);transport=tls;lr;nat=yes>\r\n", "Record-Route");
In one scenario I see the conflicting port numbers in “via” header vs “Record route”.
The ACK is being set to port 5060 based on Record route header and is not being received by the callee.
2017-01-23 14:52:49.970233 [blink.exe 2780]: SENDING: Packet 11, +0:00:36.411867
10.0.27.108:58217 -(SIP over TLS)-> 172.31.211.31:5061
SIP/2.0 180 Ringing
Via: SIP/2.0/TLS 63.149.103.72:5061;received=172.31.211.31;branch=z9hG4bK4799.7067bd2a48063748a4c353fa408eaefa.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 10.0.16.52;rport=5060;branch=z9hG4bK4799.935a27c6ef5ad112225964cbe7c1be44.0;i=2
Via: SIP/2.0/TLS 10.11.200.12:51793;rport=51793;received=10.11.200.12;branch=z9hG4bKPj49f6aeca3f9b4155ab4c5304b544aa4d;alias
Record-Route: <sip:63.149.103.72:5060;transport=tls;lr;nat=yes>
Record-Route: <sip:10.0.16.52:5061;transport=tls;lr;nat=yes>
Call-ID: 09ce10efa6a946bf9445ccc21857393e
From: "cust1" <sip:cust1@devtranslation.sms-test.cyracom.com>;tag=95082caabecc42548c2fec5ccd29e5de
To: <sip:spanish@translation.sms-test.cyracom.com>;tag=ec365cc8489b48a7bc5725d21b7d97a1
CSeq: 17422 INVITE
Server: Blink 3.0.0 (Windows)
Contact: <sip:20745891@10.0.27.108:58216;transport=tls>
Allow: SUBSCRIBE, NOTIFY, PRACK, INVITE, ACK, BYE, CANCEL, UPDATE, MESSAGE, REFER
Content-Length: 0
Questions:
1. How can I let in-built record-route function automatically choose “public ip” so I can get rid of my manual insertion altogether.
2. If no option, what is the right way to choose the port on which packet is being received, so it is same as what is on “VIA”.
3. Any other pointers to improve the logic here?
Hello,
Is pua.publish strictly an MI function, or is it possible nowadays to
call it via the RPC channel, and specifically, using jsonrpc_exec()?
Thanks!
-- Alex
--
Alex Balashov | Principal | Evariste Systems LLC
Tel: +1-706-510-6800 (direct) / +1-800-250-5920 (toll-free)
Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/, http://www.csrpswitch.com/
Hi,
I'm trying to set up a Kamailio (4.1.3) server which converts between IPv6
and IPv4. Everything looks pretty good. Now I have a test client which
sends packets via IPv6, but in contact header, SDP etc. there are still
IPv4 addresses. (This comes from some converting from v4 to v6 earlier.)
Thus, Kamailio tries to do a fix_nated_contact(). But after fixing, the
Contact URI is wrong.
Example:
inbound
Contact: <sip:bob@192.168.8.132>
outbound
Contact: <sip:bob@1234:1234:0:1234:0:0:0:2>
The correct way of transforming the Contact URI would be:
Contact: <sip:bob@[1234:1234:0:1234:0:0:0:2]>
This incorrect Contact URI doesn't hurt first, but when the called party
wants to hang up the call, it addresses the URI from Contact header, and
Kamailio can't parse the Request URI:
Jan 22 12:03:48 router /usr/sbin/kamailio[21309]: ERROR: pv
[pv_core.c:304]: pv_get_ruri_attr(): failed to parse the R-URI
Jan 22 12:03:48 router /usr/sbin/kamailio[21309]: ERROR: rr [loose.c:934]:
loose_route(): failed to parse Request URI
Jan 22 12:03:48 router /usr/sbin/kamailio[21309]: ERROR: domain
[domain.c:140]: is_uri_host_local(): error while parsing R-URI
Is this a bug in the nathelper module? Was it never meant to handle IPv6
addresses? Or do I understand something wrong?
Best Regards,
Sebastian
Hi All,
I have a strange issue, I have set the module parameter for nathelper's
force_socket to a specfic ip/port, however, when I perform a sip trace I
can see that all locally generated options messages are not sent from
the socket defined in the modules parameters.
I am not setting $fs anywhere in the script, so I am not over-writing
it. Do any of the other module parameters have a bearing on if nathelper
uses the force_socket parameter?
My current nathelper settings are:
modparam("nathelper", "received_avp", "$avp(RECEIVED)")
modparam("nathelper", "natping_interval", 20)
modparam("nathelper", "natping_processes", 4)
modparam("nathelper", "ping_nated_only", 1)
modparam("nathelper", "sipping_from", "sip:keepalive@domain.com")
modparam("nathelper", "sipping_method", "OPTIONS")
modparam("nathelper", "sipping_bflag", NAT_BFLAG)
modparam("nathelper", "force_socket", "1.2.3.4:5060")
I am using kamailio v4.3.1:
# kamailio -V
version: kamailio 4.3.1 (x86_64/linux) f38e67
flags: STATS: Off, USE_TCP, USE_TLS, USE_SCTP, TLS_HOOKS, USE_RAW_SOCKS,
DISABLE_NAGLE, USE_MCAST, DNS_IP_HACK, SHM_MEM, SHM_MMAP, PKG_MALLOC,
F_MALLOC, DBG_F_MALLOC, USE_FUTEX, FAST_LOCK-ADAPTIVE_WAIT,
USE_DNS_CACHE, USE_DNS_FAILOVER, USE_NAPTR, USE_DST_BLACKLIST,
HAVE_RESOLV_RES
ADAPTIVE_WAIT_LOOPS=1024, MAX_RECV_BUFFER_SIZE 262144, MAX_LISTEN 16,
MAX_URI_SIZE 1024, BUF_SIZE 65535, DEFAULT PKG_SIZE 8MB
poll method support: poll, epoll_lt, epoll_et, sigio_rt, select.
id: f38e67
compiled on 18:15:23 Jul 20 2015 with gcc 4.4.7
Thanks
Hi,
I am newbie to kamailio world and we would like to deploy Kamailio based
IMS platform. Can any body share the link or Step by step procedure(user
Guide) to deploy Kamailio IMS.
Regards,
Ramya