Hi all,
I am still looking for some help to debug why S-CSCF send BYE to caller and callee after a call was connected. from wireshark, I just saw S-CSCF send BYE to both caller and callee. That matched the S-CSCF debug output. But the question is why S-CSCF delete contact and send BYE to a active call? There was no timer expire or something like that in the log... Anyone can help?
Thanks,
--Charles
19(24) DEBUG: <core> [core/mem/q_malloc.c:519]: qm_free(): freeing frag. 0x7fb09413e6d0 alloc'ed from cdp: diameter_msg.c: AAATranslateMessage(484)
19(24) DEBUG: tm [t_lookup.c:1618]: t_lookup_ident(): transaction found
19(24) DEBUG: <core> [core/mem/q_malloc.c:367]: qm_malloc(): qm_malloc(0x7fb093db6000, 6872) called from core: core/sip_msg_clone.c: sip_msg_shm_clone(496)
19(24) DEBUG: <core> [core/mem/q_malloc.c:412]: qm_malloc(): qm_malloc(0x7fb093db6000, 6872) returns address 0x7fb09414d450 frag. 0x7fb09414d418 (size=6872) on 1 -th hit
19(24) ERROR: *** cfgtrace:failure_route=[REG_SAR_REPLY] c=[/etc/kamailio/kamailio.cfg] l=767 a=26 n=xlog
19(24) DEBUG: <script>: saa_return code is 1
19(24) ERROR: *** cfgtrace:failure_route=[REG_SAR_REPLY] c=[/etc/kamailio/kamailio.cfg] l=769 a=26 n=xlog
19(24) DEBUG: <script>: saa_return code (for scscf_save on register) is 1
19(24) ERROR: *** cfgtrace:failure_route=[REG_SAR_REPLY] c=[/etc/kamailio/kamailio.cfg] l=783 a=21 n=switch
19(24) ERROR: *** cfgtrace:failure_route=[REG_SAR_REPLY] c=[/etc/kamailio/kamailio.cfg] l=772 a=26 n=xlog
19(24) DEBUG: <script>: SAR success - 200 response sent from module
19(24) ERROR: *** cfgtrace:failure_route=[REG_SAR_REPLY] c=[/etc/kamailio/kamailio.cfg] l=773 a=2 n=exit
19(24) DEBUG: <core> [core/mem/q_malloc.c:475]: qm_free(): qm_free(0x7fb093db6000, 0x7fb09414d450), called from tm: t_reply.c: free_faked_req(948)
19(24) DEBUG: <core> [core/mem/q_malloc.c:519]: qm_free(): freeing frag. 0x7fb09414d418 alloc'ed from core: core/sip_msg_clone.c: sip_msg_shm_clone(496)
19(24) DEBUG: <core> [core/mem/q_malloc.c:475]: qm_free(): qm_free(0x7fb093db6000, 0x7fb09413e978), called from ims_registrar_scscf: cxdx_sar.c: free_saved_transaction_data(94)
19(24) DEBUG: <core> [core/mem/q_malloc.c:519]: qm_free(): freeing frag. 0x7fb09413e940 alloc'ed from ims_registrar_scscf: save.c: save(1414)
19(24) DEBUG: <core> [core/mem/q_malloc.c:475]: qm_free(): qm_free(0x7fb093db6000, 0x7fb09413e0b0), called from ims_registrar_scscf: reply.c: free_contact_buf(830)
19(24) DEBUG: <core> [core/mem/q_malloc.c:519]: qm_free(): freeing frag. 0x7fb09413e078 alloc'ed from ims_registrar_scscf: reply.c: build_contact(443)
19(24) DEBUG: <core> [core/mem/q_malloc.c:475]: qm_free(): qm_free(0x7fb093db6000, 0x7fb094145218), called from ims_registrar_scscf: reply.c: free_contact_buf(835)
19(24) DEBUG: <core> [core/mem/q_malloc.c:519]: qm_free(): freeing frag. 0x7fb0941451e0 alloc'ed from ims_registrar_scscf: reply.c: build_contact(435)
19(24) DEBUG: <core> [core/mem/q_malloc.c:475]: qm_free(): qm_free(0x7fb093db6000, 0x7fb094147dc0), called from ims_registrar_scscf: cxdx_sar.c: free_saved_transaction_data(98)
19(24) DEBUG: <core> [core/mem/q_malloc.c:519]: qm_free(): freeing frag. 0x7fb094147d88 alloc'ed from ims_registrar_scscf: save.c: save(1396)
19(24) DEBUG: <core> [core/mem/q_malloc.c:475]: qm_free(): qm_free(0x7fb093db6000, 0x7fb09415b4c8), called from cdp: transaction.c: cdp_free_trans(182)
19(24) DEBUG: <core> [core/mem/q_malloc.c:519]: qm_free(): freeing frag. 0x7fb09415b490 alloc'ed from cdp: transaction.c: cdp_add_trans(110)
19(24) DEBUG: <core> [core/mem/q_malloc.c:475]: qm_free(): qm_free(0x7fb093db6000, 0x7fb0941442a0), called from cdp: transaction.c: cdp_free_trans(183)
19(24) DEBUG: <core> [core/mem/q_malloc.c:519]: qm_free(): freeing frag. 0x7fb094144268 alloc'ed from cdp: transaction.c: cdp_add_trans(105)
13(18) DEBUG: ims_usrloc_scscf [ims_usrloc_scscf_mod.c:481]: timer(): Syncing cache
13(18) DEBUG: ims_usrloc_scscf [udomain.c:291]: mem_timer_udomain(): *** mem_timer_udomain - checking contacts - START ***
13(18) DEBUG: ims_usrloc_scscf [udomain.c:301]: mem_timer_udomain(): We have a [3gpp=0] contact in the new contact list in slot 95 = [sip:bob@ims.mnc001.mnc001.3gppnetwork.org] (sip:bob@192.168.164.248:50448;rinstance=989f943bd5098a11;transport=UDP) which expires in -60.000000 seconds and has a ref count of 0 (state: Contact with delayed delete)
13(18) DEBUG: ims_usrloc_scscf [udomain.c:309]: mem_timer_udomain(): contact in state CONTACT_DELATED_DELETE is about to be deleted13(18) DEBUG: ims_usrloc_scscf [udomain.c:301]: mem_timer_udomain(): We have a [3gpp=0] contact in the new contact list in slot 464 = [sip:alice@ims.mnc001.mnc001.3gppnetwork.org] (sip:alice@192.168.164.203:44640;rinstance=e35e9704884c3208;transport=UDP) which expires in 50.000000 seconds and has a ref count of 1 (state: Contact valid)
13(18) DEBUG: ims_usrloc_scscf [udomain.c:301]: mem_timer_udomain(): We have a [3gpp=0] contact in the new contact list in slot 478 = [sip:bob@ims.mnc001.mnc001.3gppnetwork.org] (sip:bob@192.168.164.248:50448;rinstance=9e742618a5f6bcae;transport=UDP) which expires in 56.000000 seconds and has a ref count of 1 (state: Contact valid)
13(18) DEBUG: ims_usrloc_scscf [udomain.c:353]: mem_timer_udomain(): *** mem_timer_udomain - checking contacts - FINISHED ***
13(18) DEBUG: ims_usrloc_scscf [udomain.c:359]: mem_timer_udomain(): *** mem_timer_udomain - checking IMPUs - START ***
13(18) DEBUG: ims_usrloc_scscf [impurecord.c:372]: process_impurecord(): Checking validity of IMPU: <sip:alice@ims.mnc001.mnc001.3gppnetwork.org> registration subscriptions
13(18) DEBUG: ims_usrloc_scscf [impurecord.c:404]: process_impurecord(): Public Identity sip:alice@ims.mnc001.mnc001.3gppnetwork.org, Barred: [0], State: [registered], contacts [1], 3gppcontacts [0]
13(18) DEBUG: ims_usrloc_scscf [impurecord.c:441]: process_impurecord(): Contact #0 - sip:alice@192.168.164.203:44640;rinstance=e35e9704884c3208;transport=UDP, Ref [1] (expires in 50 seconds) (State: 0)
13(18) DEBUG: ims_usrloc_scscf [impurecord.c:372]: process_impurecord(): Checking validity of IMPU: <sip:bob@ims.mnc001.mnc001.3gppnetwork.org> registration subscriptions
13(18) DEBUG: ims_usrloc_scscf [impurecord.c:404]: process_impurecord(): Public Identity sip:bob@ims.mnc001.mnc001.3gppnetwork.org, Barred: [0], State: [registered], contacts [1], 3gppcontacts [0]
3(18) DEBUG: ims_usrloc_scscf [impurecord.c:441]: process_impurecord(): Contact #0 - sip:bob@192.168.164.248:50448;rinstance=9e742618a5f6bcae;transport=UDP, Ref [1] (expires in 56 seconds) (State: 0)
3(18) DEBUG: ims_usrloc_scscf [udomain.c:384]: mem_timer_udomain(): *** mem_timer_udomain - checking IMPUs - FINISHED ***
3(18) DEBUG: ims_usrloc_scscf [udomain.c:406]: mem_timer_udomain(): deleting contact [sip:bob@ims.mnc001.mnc001.3gppnetwork.org]
13(18) DEBUG: ims_usrloc_scscf [impurecord.c:598]: delete_scontact(): Deleting contact: [sip:bob@192.168.164.248:50448;rinstance=989f943bd5098a11;transport=UDP]
13(18) DEBUG: ims_usrloc_scscf [usrloc_db.c:370]: db_delete_ucontact(): Deleting ucontact [sip:bob@192.168.164.248:50448;rinstance=989f943bd5098a11;transport=UDP]
13(18) DEBUG: ims_usrloc_scscf [impurecord.c:310]: mem_delete_ucontact(): Checking if dialog_data is there and needs to be torn down
13(18) DEBUG: ims_usrloc_scscf [impurecord.c:314]: mem_delete_ucontact(): first dialog is not 0
13(18) DEBUG: ims_usrloc_scscf [impurecord.c:317]: mem_delete_ucontact(): Going to tear down dialog with info h_entry [1694] h_id [3889]
13(18) DEBUG: ims_dialog [dlg_hash.c:887]: lookup_dlg(): ref dlg 0x7fb09414ce40 with 1 -> 3
13(18) DEBUG: ims_dialog [dlg_hash.c:889]: lookup_dlg(): dialog id=3889 found on entry 1694
13(18) DEBUG: ims_dialog [dlg_hash.c:1066]: unref_dlg(): unref dlg 0x7fb09414ce40 with 1 -> 2
13(18) DEBUG: ims_dialog [dlg_req_within.c:379]: dlg_terminate(): terminating confirmed dialog
13(18) DEBUG: <core> [core/mem/q_malloc.c:367]: qm_malloc(): qm_malloc(0x7fb09b5ae010, 18) called from ims_dialog: dlg_req_within.c: build_extra_hdr(229)
13(18) DEBUG: <core> [core/mem/q_malloc.c:412]: qm_malloc(): qm_malloc(0x7fb09b5ae010, 24) returns address 0x7fb09b640c30 frag. 0x7fb09b640bf8 (size=64) on 1 -th hit
13(18) DEBUG: <core> [core/mem/q_malloc.c:367]: qm_malloc(): qm_malloc(0x7fb09b5ae010, 248) called from ims_dialog: dlg_req_within.c: build_dlg_t(81)
13(18) DEBUG: <core> [core/mem/q_malloc.c:412]: qm_malloc(): qm_malloc(0x7fb09b5ae010, 248) returns address 0x7fb09b74b100 frag. 0x7fb09b74b0c8 (size=248) on 1 -th hit
13(18) DEBUG: <core> [core/mem/q_malloc.c:367]: qm_malloc(): qm_malloc(0x7fb09b5ae010, 72) called from core: core/parser/parse_rr.c: do_parse_rr_body(68)
13(18) DEBUG: <core> [core/mem/q_malloc.c:412]: qm_malloc(): qm_malloc(0x7fb09b5ae010, 72) returns address 0x7fb09b74b048 frag. 0x7fb09b74b010 (size=80) on 1 -th hit
13(18) DEBUG: ims_dialog [dlg_req_within.c:272]: send_bye(): sending BYE to caller
13(18) DEBUG: ims_dialog [dlg_hash.c:1047]: ref_dlg(): ref dlg 0x7fb09414ce40 with 1 -> 3
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipient and may contain material that is proprietary, confidential, privileged or otherwise legally protected or restricted under applicable government laws. Any review, disclosure, distributing or other use without expressed permission of the sender is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies without reading, printing, or saving.
Dear all!
After reading the documentation on dispatcher module I still have a question that isn't really documented.
Regarding the priority value of an entry in a dispatcher list:
Is a lower numerical priority value regarded as higher priority or is it the other way around?
Hopefully someone can help me to clarify this.
With best regards
FLORIAN FLOIMAIR
Software Development
Commend International GmbH
Saalachstrasse 51
5020 Salzburg, Austria
commend.com
LG Salzburg / FN 178618z
On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 09:37:51AM +0000, Laurent Schweizer wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I already see old post about this :
> https://opensips.org/pipermail/users/2014-November/030451.html
>
> but I???m interested to know if now they is a solution ????
>
> so the issue is a RE-INVITE rejected (415 Unsupported Media or 488 ) and the RTP port is changing.
> Is that case the old RTP relay (I???m using RTPengine) is destroyed after 30sec.
> Any way to restore them ?
I'm confused:
- opensips != kamailio
- rtpproxy != rtpengine
But RFC 3261 states (page 16):
During the session, either Alice or Bob may decide to change the
characteristics of the media session. This is accomplished by
sending a re-INVITE containing a new media description. This re-
INVITE references the existing dialog so that the other party knows
that it is to modify an existing session instead of establishing a
new session. The other party sends a 200 (OK) to accept the change.
The requestor responds to the 200 (OK) with an ACK. If the other
party does not accept the change, he sends an error response such as
488 (Not Acceptable Here), which also receives an ACK. However, the
failure of the re-INVITE does not cause the existing call to fail -
the session continues using the previously negotiated
characteristics. Full details on session modification are in Section
14.
So if this happens with kamailio/rtpengine that is a bug in (I presume) rtpengine.
Hello,
I've been looking at the sip_p_charging_vector() function of siputils. From
the documentation it is not evident how the PCV header is generated. Are
the exported $pcv pseudovariables writable, so that the function canl use
those when generating the header? Thanks!
BR,
George
Dear Users
Can the following call flow be implemented, if yes, can you give some suggestions with modules information?
[cid:d15f60e7-73ec-4cd8-8954-92f472a94ef7]
Regards
Hamid R. Hashmi
it's there some help manual usage for siremis?
the only KB source i have are asipto.. and only are install manuals!!
Lenz McKAY Gerardo (PICCORO)
http://qgqlochekone.blogspot.com
Hi ,
Does Kamailio has its own HSS supporting CX Interface ?
BR,
Shubhendu
From: sr-users [mailto:sr-users-bounces@lists.kamailio.org] On Behalf Of Mojtaba
Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2019 4:37 PM
To: Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
Subject: Re: [SR-Users] kamailio IMS supporting VOLTE
Hello,
Running the IMS network for supporting VoLTE with Kamailio module and FHOSS is challenging. THe Kamailio works great in IMS network but You have to optimise your own database. Using FHOSS without any support or development is very risky.
In general speaking, running VoLTE have three main section and the IMS network is one of them. You might have some challenges in EPC and RAN access.
WIth Best Regards.
Mojtaba
On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 3:23 PM Shubhendu Das <shubhendu.das(a)azcom.in> wrote:
Hi ,
I have a query regarding Kamailio open source SIP server.
Does it have any release, where its supports the feature of IMS supporting VOLTE with real commercial mobile phones(IMSI based) ?
If so, what is the release number ? Please also let me know about the supported mobile phones list.
BR,
Shubhendu
Disclaimer: This email and any files transmitted along with it may contain Azcom confidential and proprietary information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action based on the contents of the information contained herein is strictly prohibited. If you are not an intended recipient of this transmission and you received it in error, please inform the sender by reply e-mail and destroy this and all other copies of this transmission to which you have access. The sender of this email or Azcom does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message that may occur as a result._______________________________________________
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
--
--Mojtaba Esfandiari.S
--
_Disclaimer: This email and any files transmitted along with it may contain
Azcom confidential and proprietary information. If you are not the
intended recipient, you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing
or taking any action based on the contents of the information contained
herein is strictly prohibited. If you are not an intended recipient of this
transmission and you received it in error, please inform the sender by
reply e-mail and destroy this and all other copies of this transmission to
which you have access. The sender of this email or Azcom does not accept
liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message that
may occur as a result._