sr-users October 2021

sr-users@lists.kamailio.org

65 participants
59 discussions

by Emilio Panighetti

Hello, Based on kamailio-basic-kemi.cfg and kamailio-basic-kemi-lua.lua, I’m trying to get a simple test to go through using SIPp built-in UAC and UAS scenarios, using LUA config: Commented out all the registration blocks and trying to run a simple proxy for now, but I can’t seem able to change the URI. SIPp UAC: 192.168.1.12:5060 SIPp UAS: 192.168.1.12:5062 Kamailio 5.5.2: 192.168.15.:5060 Part of the Kamailio.lua config: -- wrapper around tm relay function function ksr_route_relay() -- enable additional event routes for forwarded requests -- - serial forking, RTP relaying handling, a.s.o. if KSR.is_method_in("IBSU") then if KSR.tm.t_is_set("branch_route")<0 then KSR.dbg("EP: ksr_route_relay Set for branch_route\n"); KSR.tm.t_on_branch("ksr_branch_manage"); end end if KSR.is_method_in("ISU") then if KSR.tm.t_is_set("onreply_route")<0 then KSR.dbg("EP: ksr_route_relay Set for onreply_route\n"); KSR.tm.t_on_reply("ksr_onreply_manage"); end end if KSR.is_INVITE() then if KSR.tm.t_is_set("failure_route")<0 then KSR.dbg("EP: ksr_route_relay Set for failure\n"); KSR.tm.t_on_failure("ksr_failure_manage"); end end if KSR.tm.t_relay()<0 then KSR.dbg("EP: ksr_route_relay Set for reply_error\n"); KSR.sl.sl_reply_error(); end -- EP: Base route KSR.dbg("EP: ksr_route_relay Check for Base Route\n"); if KSR.is_INVITE() then KSR.dbg("EP: ksr_route_relay Base Route (DU)\n"); --KSR.sl.send_reply("503", "Debug"); KSR.setdsturi("sip:192.168.1.12:5062"); KSR.pv.sets("$du", "sip:192.168.1.12:5062"); end KSR.dbg("EP: ksr_route_relay exit\n"); KSR.x.exit(); end What’s happening here is that instead of forwarding the INVITE to the SIPp UAC, it creates a loop. Tried KSR.setdsturi() only (KSR.pv.sets commented out) and it’s still the same. If I comment out the 503 reply, then that’s what the UAC gets back. Here’s the log when calling ksr_route_relay: Oct 17 23:42:48 ol-vm1 kamailio[2416]: 3(2419) DEBUG: LUA {INVITE}: <core> [core/msg_translator.c:162]: check_via_address(): (192.168.1.12, 192.168.1.12, 0) Oct 17 23:42:48 ol-vm1 kamailio[2416]: 3(2419) DEBUG: LUA {INVITE}: app_lua [app_lua_api.c:489]: sr_lua_reload_script(): No need to reload [/etc/kamailio/kamaili o.lua] is version 0 Oct 17 23:42:48 ol-vm1 kamailio[2416]: 3(2419) DEBUG: LUA {INVITE}: app_lua [app_lua_api.c:673]: app_lua_run_ex(): executing Lua function: [[ksr_onsend_route]] Oct 17 23:42:48 ol-vm1 kamailio[2416]: 3(2419) DEBUG: LUA {INVITE}: app_lua [app_lua_api.c:675]: app_lua_run_ex(): lua top index is: 0 Oct 17 23:42:48 ol-vm1 kamailio[2416]: 3(2419) DEBUG: LUA {INVITE}: tm [t_funcs.c:376]: t_relay_to(): new transaction forwarded Oct 17 23:42:48 ol-vm1 kamailio[2416]: 3(2419) DEBUG: LUA {INVITE}: app_lua [app_lua_api.c:1003]: sr_kemi_lua_exec_func_ex(): param[0] for: dbg is str: EP: ksr_r oute_relay Check for Base Route Oct 17 23:42:48 ol-vm1 kamailio[2416]: 3(2419) DEBUG: LUA {INVITE}: <core> [core/kemi.c:85]: sr_kemi_core_dbg(): EP: ksr_route_relay Check for Base Route Oct 17 23:42:48 ol-vm1 kamailio[2416]: 3(2419) DEBUG: LUA {INVITE}: app_lua [app_lua_api.c:1003]: sr_kemi_lua_exec_func_ex(): param[0] for: dbg is str: EP: ksr_r oute_relay Base Route (DU) Oct 17 23:42:48 ol-vm1 kamailio[2416]: 3(2419) DEBUG: LUA {INVITE}: <core> [core/kemi.c:85]: sr_kemi_core_dbg(): EP: ksr_route_relay Base Route (DU) Oct 17 23:42:48 ol-vm1 kamailio[2416]: 3(2419) DEBUG: LUA {INVITE}: app_lua [app_lua_api.c:1003]: sr_kemi_lua_exec_func_ex(): param[0] for: setdsturi is str: sip :192.168.1.12:5062 Oct 17 23:42:48 ol-vm1 kamailio[2416]: 3(2419) DEBUG: LUA {INVITE}: app_lua [app_lua_api.c:1003]: sr_kemi_lua_exec_func_ex(): param[0] for: sets is str: $du Oct 17 23:42:48 ol-vm1 kamailio[2416]: 3(2419) DEBUG: LUA {INVITE}: app_lua [app_lua_api.c:1003]: sr_kemi_lua_exec_func_ex(): param[1] for: sets is str: sip:192. 168.1.12:5062 Oct 17 23:42:48 ol-vm1 kamailio[2416]: 3(2419) DEBUG: LUA {INVITE}: <core> [core/kemi.c:2906]: sr_kemi_pv_sets(): pv set: $du Oct 17 23:42:48 ol-vm1 kamailio[2416]: 3(2419) DEBUG: LUA {INVITE}: <core> [core/pvapi.c:371]: pv_cache_add(): pvar [$du] added in cache Oct 17 23:42:48 ol-vm1 kamailio[2416]: 3(2419) DEBUG: LUA {INVITE}: app_lua [app_lua_api.c:1003]: sr_kemi_lua_exec_func_ex(): param[0] for: dbg is str: EP: ksr_r oute_relay exit Oct 17 23:42:48 ol-vm1 kamailio[2416]: 3(2419) DEBUG: LUA {INVITE}: <core> [core/kemi.c:85]: sr_kemi_core_dbg(): EP: ksr_route_relay exit Oct 17 23:42:48 ol-vm1 kamailio[2416]: 3(2419) DEBUG: LUA {INVITE}: app_lua [app_lua_api.c:1837]: sr_kemi_lua_exit(): script exit call Oct 17 23:42:48 ol-vm1 kamailio[2416]: 3(2419) DEBUG: LUA {INVITE}: app_lua [app_lua_api.c:729]: app_lua_run_ex(): ksr error call from Lua: ~~ksr~exit~~ Oct 17 23:42:48 ol-vm1 kamailio[2416]: 3(2419) DEBUG: LUA {INVITE}: app_lua [app_lua_mod.c:167]: sr_kemi_config_engine_lua(): execution of route type 1 with no n ame returned 1 Oct 17 23:42:48 ol-vm1 kamailio[2416]: 3(2419) INFO: LUA {INVITE}: <core> [core/receive.c:515]: receive_msg(): request-route executed in: 1335 usec Oct 17 23:42:48 ol-vm1 kamailio[2416]: 3(2419) DEBUG: LUA {INVITE}: <core> [core/usr_avp.c:637]: destroy_avp_list(): destroying list (nil) Oct 17 23:42:48 ol-vm1 kamailio[2416]: 3(2419) DEBUG: LUA {INVITE}: <core> [core/xavp.c:541]: xavp_destroy_list(): destroying xavp list (nil) Oct 17 23:42:48 ol-vm1 kamailio[2416]: 3(2419) DEBUG: LUA {INVITE}: <core> [core/receive.c:606]: receive_msg(): cleaning up Oct 17 23:42:48 ol-vm1 kamailio[2416]: 3(2419) DEBUG: <core> [core/udp_server.c:493]: udp_rcv_loop(): received on udp socket: (112/100/661) [[INVITE sip:service@ 192.168.1.15:5060 SIP/2.0 0D 0A Record-Route: <sip:192.168.1.15;lr=on> 0D 0A Via: SIP/2.0/U]] Any idea how we can route this message? Thanks!

3 years, 1 month

dmq_usrloc writes to database on other nodes too

by Maarten Ureel

I have the idea that if you enable dmq_usrloc, the other nodes that receive the usrloc info, also try to write to database. We see this by a lot of errors indicating the index violation on postgres. What is the easiest way to tell Kamailio that it does not need to store the usrloc in database if the data came through a DMQ message? Currently I have in my config: # DMQ processing if(is_method("KDMQ") && $Rp == 5090) { dmq_handle_message(); } I have understood that no further processing happens then. So is my assumption correct that my other handling of REGISTER will not be used then? As in, can you handle this in code that it will only store the register information in memory? Like this? # Registration handling route[REGISTRAR] { # If coming from DMQ, don't save to database if(dmq_is_from_node()) { save("location", "0x01") } }

3 years, 1 month

kamailio SipTrace Module

by Андрей Зюзенков

Good afternoon, I apologize for disturbing you. I have a question that I cannot find in the documentation https://www.kamailio.org/docs/modules/devel/modules/siptrace.html#siptrace.… 3.3. trace_flag parameter has some values. And what values can be and what do they mean pls, help

3 years, 1 month

http_async_client "route_name" is considered a failure route?

by Brooks Bridges

So I've been working on this for a while, and I cannot seem to find a way around this. When using the http_async_client to request data from an external API, the returned data in the "route_name" target is being treated as a failure route, so most of the subsequent processing and messaging that I want to do is not working, either because the function can't be used in a failure route, or because I have to create a transaction prior to doing the request, which then throws an error by immediately triggering a 500 after I return the response I want (via 302 to the requesting client). Am I using http_async_client incorrectly somehow that's causing this behavior or is it expected that the response route is treated as a failure route? Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail, and any attachment to it, contains privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual(s) or entity named on the e-mail. If the reader of this e-mail is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that reading this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately return it to the sender and delete it from your system.

3 years, 1 month

Call to MS Teams

by Володимир Іванець

Hello all! I'm trying to make a call from the system with Kamailio to a MS Teams. I can answer in the Teams client, system will receive response 200 OK and audio streams will be started. The problem I have is that after a short period of time Teams sends BYE with the reason "An acknowledgement was not received for the call acceptance in the allotted time". If I try to hangup from the system side, Teams will receive BYE and respond with "481 Call Leg/Transaction Does Not Exist" - "Call leg unavailable". It looks like Teams can not match and accept ACK request to finish establishing the call and the following requests have the same problem. I was wondering if someone had this problem before or can share a SIP packet capture (of course with hidden addresses and domain names) of a correctly established and completed call to Teams? Thanks a lot! Regards, Volodymyr Ivanets

3 years, 1 month

unable to receive UDP

by dem＠htsweb.com

After 4 (long) days of trying to receive any UDP SIP, I'm hoping someone can point out what I'm doing wrong. I've looked at the kamailio code. I'm beginning to think it's the 'polling' code, but it looks fine. It could be Centos or a Dell network driver, but not seeing any errors anywhere. - stock build/compile... Version: kamailio 5.5.2 (x86_64/linux) 0d53d9 Compile flags: USE_TCP, USE_TLS, USE_SCTP, TLS_HOOKS, USE_RAW_SOCKS, DISABLE_NAGLE, USE_MCAST, DNS_IP_HACK, SHM_MMAP, PKG_MALLOC, Q_MALLOC, F_MALLOC, TLSF_MALLOC, DBG_SR_MEMORY, USE_FUTEX, FAST_LOCK-ADAPTIVE_WAIT, USE_DNS_CACHE, USE_DNS_FAILOVER, USE_NAPTR, USE_DST_BLOCKLIST, HAVE_RESOLV_RES MAX_RECV_BUFFER_SIZE=262144 MAX_URI_SIZE=1024 BUF_SIZE=65535 DEFAULT PKG_SIZE=8MB DEFAULT SHM_SIZE=64MB ADAPTIVE_WAIT_LOOPS=1024 TCP poll methods: poll, epoll_lt, epoll_et, sigio_rt, select Source code revision ID: 0d53d9 Compiled with: gcc 4.8.5 Compiled architecture: x86_64 Compiled on: 08:44:19 Oct 11 2021 Running Centos 7 all updated. Dell R630. # sestatus SELinux status: disabled # firewall-cmd --list-all ports: 5666/tcp 873/tcp 873/udp 80/tcp 443/tcp 5060/tcp 5060/udp 5061/tcp 5061/udp - Just trying to send SIP INVITE from trunk provider to R630 kamailio... (SIP trunk) UDP 172.200.200.202:5060 -> (firewall) UDP 172.250.250.162:5060 -> 1:1 NAT -> (R630) UDP 10.102.88.81:5060 - I can 'see' the packet hit the em3 network... # tcpdump -i em3 -e -vv -n port 5060 11:53:33.260892 99:99:ef:3e:69:c1 > 99:99:1c:48:4e:e3, ethertype IPv4 (0x0800), length 1366: (tos 0x0, ttl 54, id 20430, offset 0, flags [none], proto UDP (17), length 1352) 172.200.200.202.sip > 10.102.88.81.sip: [udp sum ok] SIP, length: 1324 INVITE sip:+18005551234@172.250.250.162:5060 SIP/2.0 ... At this point, I just need to see a SIP INVITE received. Then I can go back to working on a real config. I've tried with TCP on/off, listening on all networks, alias on/off, strace and everything else I could think of.Truly appreciate any guidance. Tried every sample config possible, but I just need to test receiving the SIP UDP packet, so this 'should' be minimum config... #!KAMAILIO debug=9 log_stderror=no log_facility=LOG_LOCAL0 log_prefix="{$mt $hdr(CSeq) $ci} " children=2 disable_tcp=yes udp4_raw=on auto_aliases=no alias="sbc01.mysite.com" listen=udp:10.102.88.81:5060 loadmodule "debugger.so" loadmodule "jsonrpcs.so" loadmodule "kex.so" loadmodule "corex.so" loadmodule "sl.so" loadmodule "rr.so" loadmodule "pv.so" loadmodule "textops.so" loadmodule "siputils.so" loadmodule "xlog.so" loadmodule "sanity.so" loadmodule "ctl.so" loadmodule "cfg_rpc.so" modparam("debugger", "cfgtrace", 1) request_route { xlog("SIP received xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx\n"); } # kamcmd ps 11578 main process - attendant 11579 udp receiver child=0 sock=10.102.88.81:5060 11580 udp receiver child=1 sock=10.102.88.81:5060 11581 slow timer 11583 timer 11584 secondary timer 11585 JSONRPCS FIFO 11586 JSONRPCS DATAGRAM 11587 ctl handler - I get plenty of logging, but the logging just waits here... Oct 12 11:38:04 sbc01 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[10060]: INFO: ctl [io_listener.c:210]: io_listen_loop(): io_listen_loop: using epoll_lt as the io watch method (auto detected) Oct 12 11:38:04 sbc01 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[10060]: DEBUG: <core> [core/mem/q_malloc.c:374]: qm_malloc(): qm_malloc(0x7fd2a8bae010, 4800) called from core: core/io_wait.c: init_io_wait(469) Oct 12 11:38:04 sbc01 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[10059]: DEBUG: <core> [core/mem/q_malloc.c:419]: qm_malloc(): qm_malloc(0x7fd2a8bae010, 65456) returns address 0x7fd2a8c652d8 frag. 0x7fd2a8c652a0 (size=65456) on 1 -th hit Oct 12 11:38:04 sbc01 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[10060]: DEBUG: <core> [core/mem/q_malloc.c:419]: qm_malloc(): qm_malloc(0x7fd2a8bae010, 4800) returns address 0x7fd2a8c652d8 frag. 0x7fd2a8c652a0 (size=4800) on 1 -th hit Oct 12 11:38:04 sbc01 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[10060]: DEBUG: <core> [core/mem/q_malloc.c:374]: qm_malloc(): qm_malloc(0x7fd2a8bae010, 2400) called from core: core/io_wait.c: init_io_wait(516) Oct 12 11:38:04 sbc01 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[10060]: DEBUG: <core> [core/mem/q_malloc.c:419]: qm_malloc(): qm_malloc(0x7fd2a8bae010, 2400) returns address 0x7fd2a8c66600 frag. 0x7fd2a8c665c8 (size=2400) on 1 -th hit Oct 12 11:38:04 sbc01 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[10060]: DEBUG: ctl [io_listener.c:246]: io_listen_loop(): io_listen_loop: adding socket 8, type 2, transport 3 (/var/run/kamailio//kamailio_ctl) Oct 12 11:38:04 sbc01 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[10060]: DEBUG: ctl [../../core/io_wait.h:375]: io_watch_add(): DBG: io_watch_add(0x7fd2a70a5360, 8, 2, 0x2439960), fd_no=0 - The only other thing that I see is transport 3. Isn't that a UNIXS_SOCK?

3 years, 1 month

Kamailio Inbound proxy to Asterisk - ACL Filtering

by Mihai Cezar

Hello, I have an issue with filtering on the asterisk side, my requests are: UsersPhones(bria) -> Kamailio -> Asterisk -> Sip Trunk Out. The goal is to manage a new layer of protection ( IP filtering / Whitelisting ). When I try to compile a list of Whitelisted IP in sip.conf I get this error: NOTICE[205]: acl.c:748 ast_apply_acl: SIP contact ACL: Rejecting '145.72.23.45' due to a failure to pass ACL '(BASELINE)' WARNING[205]: chan_sip.c:17061 parse_register_contact: Domain '5.12.16.2:48669' disallowed by contact ACL (violating IP 145.72.23.45) WARNING[205]: chan_sip.c:17933 register_verify: Registration denied because of contact ACL The IP 145.72.23.45, is the proxy kamailio and if I added it to sip.conf it works, but so does every ip afterwards. I tried with contactpermit also with permit, the result is the same as long as I permit the proxy ip it works. Is there something that I can do on the asterisk side to activate this filtering Or there is something that I can do in Kamailio so it will forward the realip ? contactdeny=0.0.0.0/0.0.0.0 contactpermit=145.72.23.45/32 contactpermit=5.12.16.2/32 Thanks in advance,

3 years, 1 month

Compile kamailio-5.4 against openssl1.1.1

by Antony Russell

Hello I see that support for compiling kamailio against openssl1.1.1 was recently added (https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/pull/2779) and I see that this can be done in kamailio-5.5.2. Will this ability be made available in kamilio-5.4? I see it is not in the most recent 5.4 release (5.4.7) -- *Antony Russell* Chief Technical Officer Tel 087 820 8113 antony.russell(a)telviva.co.za www.telviva.co.za *Telviva (Pty) Ltd - formerly Connection Telecom (Pty) Ltd* -- https://www.telviva.co.za/legal/email-disclaimer <https://www.telviva.co.za/legal/email-disclaimer>

3 years, 1 month

Fail Call from Webrct to PSTN SIP Trunk

by Abdul Rahman Reza

Hi Everyone There some log kamailio Warning: 399 03077.08860.B.005.422.228.0.15.01039.00000000.00000 "SDP body length beyond limit" how to increase maximum length sdp in kamailio, because i don't see any configuration related to sizing max length SDP on kamailio documentation please help me Thank you very much

3 years, 1 month

Let's Encrypt DST Root CA X3 cert CA expiration 30th/Sept - Any issues?

by Joel Serrano

Hello, I'm wondering if anyone had any issues yesterday with the expiration of the DST Root CA X3 cert? Out of all the servers I manage, only a couple were affected (debian 8). They were production servers so we replaced the cert with a different one to solve the issue while we find the root cause. Anyone out there had any issues yesterday because of this? I'm just curious! Joel.

3 years, 1 month

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 October 2021