sr-users April 2019

sr-users@lists.kamailio.org

81 participants
106 discussions

Start a nNew thread

Support for TLS v1.3 (RFC 8446)
by g.Helio 18 Apr '19

18 Apr '19

2 1

Via shows wrong protocol of Kamailio
by Andrew Chen 18 Apr '19

18 Apr '19

Hi all, Got another anomaly in 4.1.5. I have this block of code which does t_relay_tcp: if ($var(isTpgw) == 1) { xlog("L_INFO","[$ci][$mi][CSeq $cs] isTpgw = $var(isTpgw)"); if (!t_relay_to_tcp()) { xlog("L_INFO","[$ci][$mi][CSeq $cs] $ua Relaying [$rm] from ($si) to ($rd) via tcp....Error...\n"); t_on_failure("DISPATCHER_FAIL"); } else { xlog("L_INFO","[$ci][$mi][CSeq $cs] $ua Relaying [$rm] from ($si) to ($rd) via tcp\n"); } } But when I looked at my sip capture tool, it showed the Via marked by the Kam to use UDP: INVITE sip:######@<some domain>:5060 SIP/2.0 Record-Route: <sip:206.81.191.30;r2=on;lr=on> Record-Route: <sip:206.81.191.30;transport=tcp;r2=on;lr=on> Call-ID: DL9dc0c8dd93-1079779342(a)gs-3924.GSLAB.COM To: "sip:6204857@sjomaintpsg50.fuzemeeting.com" <sip:6204857@sjomaintpsg50.fuzemeeting.com> From: "LifesizeSIP" <sip:LifesizeSIP@gs-3924.GSLAB.COM:5060>;tag=DL325a9e10c7;epid=062EE468 CSeq: 1 INVITE Max-Forwards: 69 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 206.81.191.30;branch=z9hG4bKb16b.bd6a0791c798e3c859f8608993d584ae.1;i=5611 Via: SIP/2.0/TCP 10.101.199.105:5060;rport=53272;branch=z9hG4bK-fc8090ecf8-DL 206.81.191.30 is the Kam. I also log the activity as seen in the code with those xlog: Apr 11 19:38:37 sjomaintpsg50 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[16348]: INFO: <script>: [DL9dc0c8dd93-1079779342(a)gs-3924.GSLAB.COM][42][CSeq 1] isTpgw = 1 Apr 11 19:38:37 sjomaintpsg50 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[16348]: INFO: <script>: [DL9dc0c8dd93-1079779342(a)gs-3924.GSLAB.COM][42][CSeq 1] LifeSize Softphone 8.1.12 (Windows) Relaying [INVITE] from (10.101.19 9.105) to (206.81.191.72) via tcp So why did the Kamailio mark the Via header on the outgoing INVITE UDP? -- Andy Chen Sr. Telephony Lead Engineer achen@ <achen(a)thinkingphones.com>fuze.com -- *Confidentiality Notice: The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments may be confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender and permanently delete the e-mail and any attachments immediately. You should not retain, copy or use this e-mail or any attachment for any purpose, nor disclose all or any part of the contents to any other person. Thank you.*

2 1

"481 Dialog/Transaction Does Not Exist" after sending SUBSCRIBE with Expires: 0
by David Dean 18 Apr '19

18 Apr '19

When a client sends a SUBSCRIBE with Expires: 0, Kamailio responds correctly with a "202 OK". But then Kamailio sends a NOTIFY to the same client with "Subscription-State: terminated;reason=timeout". The client rejects this NOTIFY with a "481 Dialog/Transaction Does Not Exist". Why does Kamailio send this NOTIFY, and is there any way to fix or disable it because it's always rejected by the client? The client is IMSDroid, and Kamailio is 5.2.2 with a default configuration. Packet 1 = Client sending SUBSCRIBE with Expires: 0 SUBSCRIBE sip:X.X.X.X:443;transport=tcp SIP/2.0Via: SIP/2.0/TCP 192.168.0.21:45336;branch=z9hG4bK-670576127From: <sip:username@domain.com>;tag=1372208921To: <sip:kamailio.domain.com>;tag=c4eb72dabf44e7588b972bd3b454ea11-0cd6Contact: <sip:username@192.168.0.21:45336;transport=tcp>Call-ID: e8cffa8f-948d-eb99-69ca-c9f18bdf11a0CSeq: 1321654295 SUBSCRIBEExpires: 0Content-Length: 299Max-Forwards: 70Allow: INVITE, ACK, CANCEL, BYE, MESSAGE, OPTIONS, NOTIFY, PRACK, UPDATE, REFERAccept: application/pidf+xmlEvent: presence Packet 2 = Kamailio responding with 202 OK SIP/2.0 202 OKVia: SIP/2.0/TCP 192.168.0.21:45336;branch=z9hG4bK-670576127From: <sip:username@domain.com>;tag=1372208921To: <sip:kamailio@domain.com>;tag=c4eb72dabf44e7588b972bd3b454ea11-0cd6Call-ID: e8cffa8f-948d-eb99-69ca-c9f18bdf11a0CSeq: 1321654295 SUBSCRIBEExpires: 0Contact: <sip:X.X.X.X:443;transport=tcp>Server: kamailio (5.2.2 (x86_64/linux))Content-Length: 0 Packet 3 = Kamailio sending a NOTIFY NOTIFY sip:username@192.168.0.21:45336;transport=tcp SIP/2.0Via: SIP/2.0/TCP X.X.X.X:443;branch=z9hG4bKefe7.5f8ec435000000000000000000000000.0To: <sip:username@domain.com>;tag=1372208921From: <sip:kamailio@domain.com>;tag=c4eb72dabf44e7588b972bd3b454ea11-0cd6CSeq: 3 NOTIFYCall-ID: e8cffa8f-948d-eb99-69ca-c9f18bdf11a0Content-Length: 0Max-Forwards: 70Event: presenceContact: <sip:X.X.X.X:443;transport=tcp>Subscription-State: terminated;reason=timeout Packet 4 = Client responding to the NOTIFY with "481 Dialog/Transaction Does Not Exist" SIP/2.0 481 Dialog/Transaction Does Not ExistVia: SIP/2.0/TCP X.X.X.X:443;branch=z9hG4bKefe7.5f8ec435000000000000000000000000.0From: <sip:kamailio@domain.com>;tag=c4eb72dabf44e7588b972bd3b454ea11-0cd6To: <sip:username@domain.com>;tag=1372208921Call-ID: e8cffa8f-948d-eb99-69ca-c9f18bdf11a0CSeq: 3 NOTIFYContent-Length: 0 There are two entries in the Kamailio log: INFO: {1 1321654295 SUBSCRIBE e8cffa8f-948d-eb99-69ca-c9f18bdf11a0} presence [notify.c:1614]: send_notify_request(): NOTIFY sip:username@domain.com via sip:Y.Y.Y.Y:45336;transport=tcp on behalf of sip:kamailio.domain.com for event presence : e8cffa8f-948d-eb99-69ca-c9f18bdf11a0 ERROR: {2 3 NOTIFY e8cffa8f-948d-eb99-69ca-c9f18bdf11a0} presence [subscribe.c:497]: delete_subs(): Failed to delete subscription from memory [slot: 174 ev: sip:kamailio.domain.com pu: presence ci: e8cffa8f-948d-eb99-69ca-c9f18bdf11a0 ft: 1372208921 tt: c4eb72dabf44e7588b972bd3b454ea11-0cd6] These are the presence settings in the Kamailio config file: #!ifdef WITH_PRESENCE# ----- presence params -----modparam("presence", "db_url", DBURL)modparam("presence", "send_fast_notify", 0) # ----- presence_xml params -----modparam("presence_xml", "db_url", DBURL)modparam("presence_xml", "force_active", 1)modparam("presence_xml", "force_dummy_presence", 0)#!endif Appreciate your help.

2 1

Rewrite private IP in SDP
by Bonjour Madame 18 Apr '19

18 Apr '19

Hello all, I am dealing with a no audio issue, phones are not even ringing. There is a private IP address in the "VIA" section of the message header of the INVITE: Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.1.25:65291 ;rport;branch=z9hG4bKPj9e3849d1981a4094a8323dad5826ec34 and in the contact too: Contact: <sip:5002@192.168.1.25:65291;ob> In the "status 100 Attempting to connect your call" from the server, I can see the public IP of the phone under received: Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.1.25:65291 ;rport=53990;branch=z9hG4bKPj9e3849d1981a4094a8323dad5826ec34;received=PHONE_PUBLIC_IP And in the "status 200 ok" from the server, I have: Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.1.25:65291 ;received=PHONE_PUBLIC_IP;rport=53990;branch=z9hG4bKPj9e3849d1981a4094a8323dad5826ec34 Record-Route: <sip:SERVER_PUBLIC_IP;lr=on;ftag=9284528256a54f8b81e692133a15684c> I don't know what steps to take to resolve this issue.

3 3

Record route dynamic IP
by eyas barhouk 17 Apr '19

17 Apr '19

hello dears i'm trying to build kamailio & asterisk with the following : * Kamailio will listen to All the interfaces : listen=udp:0.0.0.0:5050 listen=udp:0.0.0.0:5060 * it will add the record header as in the following part : if (!isflagset(FLT_RR)) record_route(); setflag(FLT_RR); when the sip message get from kamailio to asterisk the record route header will be like "<sip:0.0.0.0:5060;....etc.>" So is there any way to make the Via and record route headers has a specific IP instead of (0.0.0.0) i mean Something like "record_route("$Ri")". thanks & regards

2 1

How can i change kamailio SIP port form 5060 to any other
by Gaurav Bmotra 17 Apr '19

17 Apr '19

HI this is Gaurav im using kamailio 5.1.2 on ubuntu 18.4 i want to change kamailio SIP port 5060 to other port for security purpose plz help me -- *Regards:* Gaurav Kumar

2 3

TCP connection lifetime
by Aymeric Moizard 17 Apr '19

17 Apr '19

Hi Again, Here is an issue with TCP connection being kept for more: Yesterday, I have discovered that a User-Agent (<Avaya IP Phone 1120E (SIP1120e.04.04.30.00)> tried to register a lot. It was sending REGISTER over new established TCP socket *every 2 seconds*. All the REGISTER was rejected with 401. (may be the device was misconfigured? or not receiving any of my answer? I can't tell) NOTE: You can see the expires header was very large: 86400, ie: 24 hours... I was checking the TCP/TLS connections on my server and discovered more than 1000 TCP established connection to that user/ip, and thus, I have tried to understand what happened. Checking the logs, I received 4855 REGISTER from this device from "Mar 25 03:47:09" to "Mar 25 07:56:13" which is a rate of approx one new TCP connection every 2.5 seconds... Today, I decided to check it again around 11am. jack@sip:~$ sudo kamctl stats tcp { "jsonrpc": "2.0", "result": [ "tcp:con_reset = 1857", "tcp:con_timeout = 35927", "tcp:connect_failed = 25", "tcp:connect_success = 2", "tcp:current_opened_connections = 2291", "tcp:current_write_queue_size = 0", "tcp:established = 80778", "tcp:local_reject = 0", "tcp:passive_open = 80776", "tcp:send_timeout = 2", "tcp:sendq_full = 0" ], "id": 7305 } There was still A LOT of established connections. And the connections have been established more than 24 hours ago. At 11H16: $> lsof -n -l | grep kamailio | grep TCP | grep 41.234.242.69 | grep ESTA | wc -l 1161 At 11H22: $> lsof -n -l | grep kamailio | grep TCP | grep 41.234.242.69 | grep ESTA | wc -l 1018 At 11H35: $> lsof -n -l | grep kamailio | grep TCP | grep 41.234.242.69 | grep ESTA | wc -l 655 At 13H $> lsof -n -l | grep kamailio | grep TCP | grep 41.234.242.69 | grep ESTA | wc -l 0 So the established connections are all gone now. Between 11h16 and 11H35, I was seeing the server regularly sending [FIN, ACK] over each TCP established connection, with retransmissions for all of them. (no incoming trafic) I do not have numbers/capture/stats, but I think that kamailio was already closing some connection yesterday. I don't know when kamailio started to try closing those connections. I'm now back with this status: At 13pm: jack@sip:~$ sudo kamctl stats tcp { "jsonrpc": "2.0", "result": [ "tcp:con_reset = 1896", "tcp:con_timeout = 38042", "tcp:connect_failed = 26", "tcp:connect_success = 2", "tcp:current_opened_connections = 939", "tcp:current_write_queue_size = 0", "tcp:established = 81950", "tcp:local_reject = 0", "tcp:passive_open = 81948", "tcp:send_timeout = 2", "tcp:sendq_full = 0" ], "id": 12734 } With around 155 registration entries using TCP and TLS in my location database. As you can see, tcp:current_opened_connections = 939 is still pretty high compared to my currently registred users. I have "modparam("registrar", "max_expires", 86400)", because I'm keeping contact entries (even with TCP connection down) for push notifications. I have "tcp_connection_lifetime=3600" configured. Question 1 With "tcp_connection_lifetime=3600", I would expect kamailio to close the established connection after 3600 seconds without traffic. It is pretty obvious that no data has been exchanged over the 4855 established connection during a day. Despite the issue with the Avaya phones is solved automatically after a day, I guess similar stuff or happening, at a different rate, for other users as well. (because current_opened_connections is way higher than registred TCP/TLS users) Question 2 I can list TLS connection with "kamctl rpc tls.list" Can I get a similar list for TCP? (lsof returns a lot of duplicates...) Tks Aymeric -- Antisip - http://www.antisip.com

2 4

Route header
by Duarte Rocha 17 Apr '19

17 Apr '19

Greetings, Is there a difference for Kamailio between these 2 situations. 1 - Method with 2 Route Headers, each one with one address and one uri 2 - Method with 1 Route Header that includes 2 Route URI Best Regards, Duarte Rocha

1 0

allow calls only from registered users
by Gaurav Bmotra 17 Apr '19

17 Apr '19

HI this is Gaurav im using kamailio 5.1.2 on ubuntu 18.4 i wan to implement user based calling on kamailio , that only can call how registered with user plz help -- *Regards:* Gaurav Kumar

2 1

Send 200 OK response with body to INVITE requests
by David Dean 16 Apr '19

16 Apr '19

Hi all, I'm building an automated load testing system for an rtp media server with TURN that uses Kamailio for SIP. When a client sends an INVITE to Kamailio, I need Kamailio to respond with "200 OK" and the SDP generated by rtpengine. I've enabled auto-answer in the client, so as soon as it receives the response from Kamailio it will start sending RTP packets. Right now I'm using send_reply("200", "OK"); which is sending the right 200 response back to the client, but it doesn't include any body. How can I get Kamailio to send a "200 OK" and add the rtpengine_answer into the body? Appreciate any help, I've been struggling with this for three days. Cheers. rtpengine_offer("SIP-source-address ICE=force-relay RTP");send_reply("200", "OK");

4 7

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Older →

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 April 2019