sr-users April 2020

sr-users@lists.kamailio.org

70 participants
99 discussions

Re: [SR-Users] Kamailio propagates 180 and 200 OK OUT OF ORDER
by Daniel-Constantin Mierla 09 Apr '20

09 Apr '20

On 09.04.20 09:47, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote: > [...] >> >> Any idea why Async is not allowed in reply_route()? >> Didn't notice this question in the first place to respond in my previous email. Probably the developer that did it needed it for SIP requests. However, you can make a patch (pull request) to make it work for other cases. The developers will review the changes and if they don't break anything, it will be merged. Cheers, Daniel

2 1

kamailio - IPSEC
by Pavithra M 09 Apr '20

09 Apr '20

Hi, Is there any possibility to disable ipsec_pcscf in kamailio 5.3.3.

2 2

Re: [SR-Users] Kamailio propagates 180 and 200 OK OUT OF ORDER
by Daniel-Constantin Mierla 09 Apr '20

09 Apr '20

Hello, it was a reply to my email where I mentioned the route_locks_size parameter. As he said he looked at that parameter, I assumed it was about the route_locks_size, because there was not other parameter listed in the emails. So using the route_locks_size parameter doesn't require to use dialog module. Cheers, Daniel On 09.04.20 10:29, Henning Westerholt wrote: > > Hello, > > > > I mentioned in some of earlier e-mails as one possible option to track > the state of a dialog and to act depending on it. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Henning > > > > -- > > Henning Westerholt – https://skalatan.de/blog/ > > Kamailio services – https://gilawa.com <https://gilawa.com/> > > > > *From:* Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda(a)gmail.com> > *Sent:* Thursday, April 9, 2020 9:48 AM > *To:* luis.rojas(a)sixbell.com; Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List > <sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org>; Henning Westerholt <hw(a)skalatan.de> > *Subject:* Re: [SR-Users] Kamailio propagates 180 and 200 OK OUT OF ORDER > > > > Hello, > > On 08.04.20 23:03, Luis Rojas G. wrote: > > Hello, Daniel, > > > > I looked into that parameter, but I need to use with the dialog > module, and I'm pretty afraid to use that. > > who said or where is written than you need to load the dialog module? > You definitely don't. > > Cheers, > Daniel > > > > I was looking more into the stateless proxy, because I need to > process a lot of traffic. > > > > My target is 4200CAPS. with duration between 90s and 210. Let's > say, 150 seconds. That would mean 630.000 simultaneous dialogs. I > don't think the solution can go that way. > > it would really help me to be able to use completely stateless > proxy plus Async in reply_route(), to introduce an artificial > delay before forwarding 200 OK to Invite.. As someone mentioned, > it would help me on request_route(), for race conditions between > ACK and Re-Invite. > > Any idea why Async is not allowed in reply_route()? > > Best regards, > > > > Luis > > > > On 4/8/20 1:07 PM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote: > > Hello, > > you have to keep in mind that Kamailio is a SIP packet router, > not a telephony engine. If 180 and 200 replies are part of a > call is not something that Kamailio recognize at its core. Its > main goal is to route out as fast as possible what is > received, by executing the configuration file script. Now, a > matter of your configuration file, processing of some SIP > messages can take longer than processing other. And the > processing is done in parallel, a matter of children parameter > (and tcp_children, sctp_children). > > With that in mind, a way to try to cope better with the issue > you face is to set route_locks_size parameter, see: > > * > https://www.kamailio.org/wiki/cookbooks/devel/core#route_locks_size > <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.kamai…> > > Probably is what you look for. > > But if you want more tight constraints, like when receiving a > 180 after a 200ok and not route it out, you have to make the > logic in configuration file by combining modules such as > dialog or htable (as already suggested). > > Cheers, > Daniel > -- Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- www.asipto.com www.twitter.com/miconda -- www.linkedin.com/in/miconda

1 0

pcscf logs - error in kamailio
by Pavithra M 09 Apr '20

09 Apr '20

Hi , The error i am facing in kamailio pcscf Apr 9 13:44:31 tel-VirtualBox kamailio[2847]: INFO: rr [rr_mod.c:515]: pv_get_route_uri_f(): No route header present. Apr 9 13:44:31 tel-VirtualBox kamailio[2811]: ERROR: <core> [core/lvalue.c:353]: lval_pvar_assign(): setting pvar failed Apr 9 13:44:31 tel-VirtualBox kamailio[2811]: ERROR: <core> [core/lvalue.c:404]: lval_assign(): assignment failed at pos: (106,30-106,48) Apr 9 13:44:31 tel-VirtualBox kamailio[2811]: ERROR: <core> [core/lvalue.c:353]: lval_pvar_assign(): setting pvar failed Apr 9 13:44:31 tel-VirtualBox kamailio[2811]: ERROR: <core> [core/lvalue.c:404]: lval_assign(): assignment failed at pos: (114,31-114,52) kindly help me in this issue .. because of this , it is throwing 403 domain not server error in scscf

1 0

Error in kamailio 5.3.3
by Pavithra M 08 Apr '20

08 Apr '20

Hi, I have configured kamailio as Ims server with pcscf,icscf,scsf and hss in 4 different vms . After that I use zoiper client for testing the call flow . Registration is successful .It goes via UE -> Pcscf -> icscf -> scscf and returns back with 200 OK . Registration is happening with authentication from hss . When I make an INVITE , it goes from UE -> PCSCF -> SCSCF -> ICSCF -> SCSF and s-cscf gives *403 - Domain not served *to icscf and i-cscf returns to p-cscf with the same error . I am not seeing any errors in scscf and i-cscf . In pcscf , I am seeing an error like *Error : <core> [core/lvalue.c] :lval_pvar_assign() : setting pvar failed * *Error : <core> [core/lvalue.c] :* *lval_assign():assignment failed at pos* What should I do? Kindly advise. I am struggling with this issue for a week.kindly do the needful. Version - kamailio - 5.3.3 I need a normal call flow to be established between two clients.kindly help .

3 10

Re: [SR-Users] Kamailio propagates 180 and 200 OK OUT OF ORDER
by Alex Balashov 08 Apr '20

08 Apr '20

On Wed, Apr 08, 2020 at 10:51:25PM +0200, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote: > - corex module offers functions to set source address and received > socket for more flexibility why processing on 127.0.0.1 Interesting. Thanks for the tip! -- Alex Balashov | Principal | Evariste Systems LLC Tel: +1-706-510-6800 / +1-800-250-5920 (toll-free) Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/, http://www.csrpswitch.com/

1 0

Re: [SR-Users] Kamailio propagates 180 and 200 OK OUT OF ORDER
by Alex Balashov 08 Apr '20

08 Apr '20

On Wed, Apr 08, 2020 at 04:54:48PM +0100, David Villasmil wrote: > I have a question on this, since 180 arrived before the 200, shouldn’t it > go out before? I.e.: FIFO? Or is this not happening because there are > multiple processes and one may take the 180 and the other the 200 and they > are processes independently? > > I guess setting the childs to only 1 should prove this theory. In theory, it should all be FIFO, of course. In practice, there are stochastic aspects to OS process scheduling and I/O scheduling which make the ingress and egress of messages arriving at Kamailio simultaneously or substantially simultaneously somewhat indeterminate. And, of course, it depends on how complicated the processing of the messages respectively is, either in computational terms, or external I/O wait, or both. To Steve Davies' point, that's just the nature of the multiprocess architecture, together with the lack of a distributor thread. -- Alex -- Alex Balashov | Principal | Evariste Systems LLC Tel: +1-706-510-6800 / +1-800-250-5920 (toll-free) Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/, http://www.csrpswitch.com/

3 5

Re: [SR-Users] Kamailio propagates 180 and 200 OK OUT OF ORDER
by Alex Balashov 08 Apr '20

08 Apr '20

On Wed, Apr 08, 2020 at 01:30:21PM +0000, Henning Westerholt wrote: > There is also the option to do an asynchronous sleep (with the async) > module on the message that you want to delay but still processing > other messages during it. We have a buggy endpoint that consistently sends reinvites immediately following the e2e ACK, and substantially simultaneously with the ACK. It quite often happens that the re-invite goes out the door before the ACK, which is of course rejected by the target due to inconsistent state. We solved this a somewhat nasty hack using just the very technique you mentioned -- we use the async features of Kamailio to 'delay' all re-invites about 50 ms. It does solve this problem, if a bit suboptimally and at the cost of eccentricity and complexity. -- Alex -- Alex Balashov | Principal | Evariste Systems LLC Tel: +1-706-510-6800 / +1-800-250-5920 (toll-free) Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/, http://www.csrpswitch.com/

1 0

KEMI - "record_route_advertised_address" - function export or alternative
by Jacob Greene 08 Apr '20

08 Apr '20

Hello all! I'm wondering if there are any plans to add record_route_advertised_address() function to KEMI? I'm unable to completely finish my migration to KEMI without this function due to server side NAT in our VPC and the record_route header getting automatically set to the advertised address. Is there a workaround I could use to change the record route header? Is anyone aware of any resources we could utilize to help get this fixed? Thanks for reading! Jake, Voice Engineer

2 1

Kamailio - pcscf error
by Pavithra M 07 Apr '20

07 Apr '20

1 0

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Older →

2026

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 2020