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.
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.
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
Hi everyone,
I've got a specific case: when the inv_fr times out, I need to add a Reason
header to the CANCEL generated by kamailio. I've tried to see if I could do
it in the onsend_route, but that one is not triggered for the generated
CANCEL. I also checked event_route[tm:local-request], but that one isn't
triggered either for the generated CANCEL.
Is there any way to do it? Or maybe to have any pointer about where to look
in the code so I may try to trigger event_route[tm:local-request] for these
generated CANCELs?
Regards,
Alfonso
hi,
I have a Kamailio setup infront of a SIP system that do not handle cancellation of a INVITE correctly.
The system sends out a BYE request instead of a Cancel request on non connected dialogs.
I am trying to find a way to let Kamailio "translate" the BYE request to a Cancel reqeust for the ongoing INVITE dialog.
Alternative if SEMS b2bua can do it, but currently it replies: "not sip-relaying BYE in not connected dlg", and I have not found any obvious way to rewrite it there.
Any thoughts. I can not change the behavior of the remote system.
Best Regards,
Lars
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.
Dear all
one quick question, reading the module corex doc, seems that xflag are
message(transaction) flags. But I made a test and seems for some reason the
flag is not seeing activated at the onreply_route, when it's activated on
the request route. Seemed more like a script flag behaviour. Maybe I'm
missing something?
thanks a lot and regards
david
Hi
I have a kamailio 5.1.2 as load balancer and registration offloading,
but I have a problem with the max tcp connections that it can handle.
I suspect that is a linux limit, but I don't find the reason or config.
When that limit arrives, I can't connect to kamailio and I receive
"Connection reset by peer", but I can't view any error message in the
logs.
If I check the connections in kamailio, I view that it have "free" connections:
# kamctl kamcmd core.tcp_info
{
readers: 8
max_connections: 4096
max_tls_connections: 2048
opened_connections: 2655
opened_tls_connections: 0
write_queued_bytes: 0
}
I have this configs in kamailio.conf (related to tcp)
disable_tcp=no
tcp_connection_lifetime=3610
tcp_connect_timeout=5
tcp_crlf_ping=yes
tcp_accept_aliases=no
tcp_keepalive=yes
tcp_keepidle=5
tcp_rd_buf_size=65536
tcp_conn_wq_max=131072
mlock_pages=yes
shm_force_alloc=yes
tcp_max_connections=4096
The shm memory to 256 and the pkg memory to 32.
And, following this doc:
https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/blob/master/doc/tutorials/tcp_tunning.…
I have setted this values:
net.ipv4.ip_local_port_range = 1024 65535
net.core.somaxconn = 65535
net.core.netdev_max_backlog = 182757
Also, I had checked the limits for the main process pid:
Limit Soft Limit Hard Limit Units
Max cpu time unlimited unlimited seconds
Max file size unlimited unlimited bytes
Max data size unlimited unlimited bytes
Max stack size 8388608 unlimited bytes
Max core file size unlimited unlimited bytes
Max resident set unlimited unlimited bytes
Max processes unlimited unlimited processes
Max open files 1048576 1048576 files
Max locked memory 16777216 16777216 bytes
Max address space unlimited unlimited bytes
Max file locks unlimited unlimited locks
Max pending signals 386297 386297 signals
Max msgqueue size 819200 819200 bytes
Max nice priority 0 0
Max realtime priority 0 0
Max realtime timeout unlimited unlimited us
The service is running inside a lxc container, without any resource
limit, connected to the outside word throught macvlan interface.
Where can I find problem source?
Best regards
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
