sr-users January 2019

sr-users@lists.kamailio.org

84 participants
100 discussions

Via header force change protocol to TLS?

by Anthony Alba

I have kamailio behind a TLS termination proxy so the sockets are correctly deduced to be TCP. However the clients only talk TLS to the proxy and are confused when the top Via header added by Kamailio is TCP. Is there a way for Kamailio to forcibly pretend its protocol is TLS? Like advertised_address but "advertised_protocol" instead. (With pjsip testing: it has a flag use_tls which ignores TCP from Kamailio and continues to use the persistent TLS transport to proxy. Linphone fails because it tries to honor TCP in Via and is unable to establish TCP transport). BTW I am using t_relay_to_tcp so Kamailio will return traffic to the proxy as TCP even though the contact addresses specify transport=TLS.

5 months, 1 week

Re: [SR-Users] TOPOS (5.1.[23]) breaks PRACK

by Daniel Tryba

On Mon, May 07, 2018 at 04:44:14PM +0200, Daniel Tryba wrote: > Sure. Attached. Problem appears to be that the topos query can't find > callid-totag (from the response). > > I'll try the same scenario with the mysql backend to see if it behaves > different. Config works fine with mysql as topos backend. So the bug is restricted to topos-redis.

1 year, 6 months

Re: [SR-Users] t_drop_replies not working with t_suspend in failure route

by Huber Andreas

Hi, We’re still using kamailio 4.4 but we’ll be migrating to 5.0 soon. Cool so it will be fixed when we migrate ! Thanks, Andreas From: sr-users [mailto:sr-users-bounces@lists.kamailio.org] On Behalf Of Federico Cabiddu Sent: vendredi 12 mai 2017 11:56 To: Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List Subject: Re: [SR-Users] t_drop_replies not working with t_suspend in failure route Hi, which version are you using? A similar case had been reported some months ago and it should be fixed in 5.0. Regards, Federico On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 11:44 AM, Huber Andreas <andreas.huber(a)nagra.com<mailto:andreas.huber@nagra.com>> wrote: Hello, We have a use case where we suspend a transaction in a failure_route to give UEs that might be woken by a push notification more time to REGISTER and join the INVITE. We’d like to drop the previous branches in this case. I tried using t_drop_replies() but it has no effect. The doc states that t_drop_replies() is only working if a new branch is added. And from my understanding t_suspend() adds a new branch. But is it possible that t_drop_replies() cannot be used with t_suspend()? Or am I missing something? Kind Regards, Andreas _______________________________________________ Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org<mailto:sr-users@lists.kamailio.org> https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users

3 years, 2 months

nat_uac_test(8)

by Sergiu Pojoga

When receiving an INVITE over a specific LTE carrier, I'm seeing 'c=IN IP4 192.0.0.4' in SDP, which isn't technically a RFC1918 or RFC6598 IP address and thus nat_uac_test(8) fails. What elegant workaround can be done to catch such specific cases? Thanks.

4 years, 6 months

need help with RTPProxy in bridged mode

by Grant Bagdasarian

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

4 years, 7 months

Kamailio OPTIONS Round-Trip

by Soltanici Ilie

Hi, With Asterisk, we are able to get some peer round-trip connection statistic by setting qualify=yes for the specified peer. It sends periodic OPTIONS to the peer and calculates the time round trip time. It's something like - "Status: OK (30 ms)". Is there any way to achieve this in Kamailio by using nathelper module, or any other? Thank you.

4 years, 7 months

rtpproxy does not response, disable it

by Zodiac

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 ------------------------------------

4 years, 10 months

Re-invite after RTPengine pacemaker switching?

by Жан Базаров

I need to send re-invite after pacemaker fails over on new rtpengine server. Because new rtpengine dont participate in DTLS handshake and i hear nothing, but silence. I think, may me its would be work. Do you have any idea on this issue?

5 years

kamailio 5.2.0 with empty table of rtpengine - kamailio doesn't start

by * Paolo Visintin - evosip.cloud

Hello, I noticed that , with kamailio ver. 5.2.1 starting with empty rtpengine table causes strange messages in kamailio and it doesn't start modparam("rtpengine", "db_url", "text:///tmp/kamailio/dbtext") cat /tmp/kamailio/dbtext/rtpengine id(int,auto) setid(int) url(string) weight(int) disabled(int) stamp(int) 0(2856) WARNING: tm [tm.c:760]: mod_init(): reparse_on_dns_failover is enabled on a multihomed host -- check the readme of tm module! 0(2856) WARNING: rtpengine [rtpengine_db.c:100]: rtpp_load_db(): No rtpproxy instances in database 0(2856) ERROR: rtpengine [rtpengine.c:2768]: select_rtpp_set(): no rtpp_set_list->rset_first 0(2856) NOTICE: rtpengine [rtpengine.c:1664]: mod_init(): Default rtpp set 0 NOT found 1(2857) NOTICE: usrloc [udomain.c:434]: preload_udomain(): filtered by server_id[0] 2(2858) ERROR: rtpengine [rtpengine.c:1722]: build_rtpp_socks(): no more pkg memory for rtpp_socks 2(2858) ERROR: <core> [core/sr_module.c:847]: init_mod_child(): error while initializing module rtpengine (/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/kamailio/modules/rtpengine.so) (idx: 2 rank: 2 desc: [udp receiver child=1 sock=172.28.0.120:5060]) 2(2858) ERROR: <core> [core/pt.c:342]: fork_process(): init_child failed for process 2, pid 2858, "udp receiver child=1 sock=172.28.0.120:5060" 2(2858) CRITICAL: <core> [main.c:1633]: main_loop(): Cannot fork 4(2860) ERROR: rtpengine [rtpengine.c:1722]: build_rtpp_socks(): no more pkg memory for rtpp_socks 4(2860) ERROR: <core> [core/sr_module.c:847]: init_mod_child(): error while initializing module rtpengine (/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/kamailio/modules/rtpengine.so) (idx: 4 rank: 4 desc: [udp receiver child=3 sock=172.28.0.120:5060]) 4(2860) ERROR: <core> [core/pt.c:342]: fork_process(): init_child failed for process 4, pid 2860, "udp receiver child=3 sock=172.28.0.120:5060" 4(2860) CRITICAL: <core> [main.c:1633]: main_loop(): Cannot fork any hint on what could be wrong ? (5.2.0 works perfectly) many thanks! Paolo

5 years, 7 months

Problem with ghost dialogs

by Cyrille Demaret

Hi, I'm running Kamailio 5.1.4 and I have some problem with some random dialogs sometimes staying in early state and never ends until I restart Kamailio. According to the init_ts, this dialog is there since 11/01/2019. * Do you have an idea how I can diagnose this problem? * Is there a way to kill these dialogs? I have tried with "dlg.end_dlg" but It seems it's not possible to kill dialogs in early states. { h_entry: 3382 h_id: 4069 call-id: d6e6de79-7d55-486f-889f-01b05c003411 from_uri: sip:0037xxxxxxxxxxx@mydomain.com to_uri: sip:1234@mydomain.com state: 2 start_ts: 0 init_ts: 1547195739 timeout: 0 lifetime: 43200 dflags: 1536 sflags: 0 iflags: 0 caller: { tag: a909d6fa-cee9-44ac-ad76-3697fcd5cb0e contact: sip:asterisk@192.168.102.20:5080;alias=192.168.102.20~5080~1 cseq: 7362 route_set: socket: udp:192.168.102.10:5060 } callee: { tag: contact: cseq: route_set: socket: } profiles: { { caller: sip:0037xxxxxxxxxxx@mydomain.com } { callee: sip:1234@mydomain.com } } variables: { } } Thank you for your help. Best regards, Cyrille

5 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 January 2019