sr-users October 2024

sr-users@lists.kamailio.org

34 participants
22 discussions

Kamailio Developers Meeting, Nov 19-20, 2024, in Dusseldorf
by Daniel-Constantin Mierla 14 Nov '24

14 Nov '24

Hello, Kamailio SIP Server project is organizing another meeting of its developers and community members during November 19-20, 2024 (Tue-Wed), hosted again by sipgate.de in Dusseldorf, Germany. The event is intended to facilitate the interaction between Kamailio developers and contributors in order to offer a convenient environment for working together on several topics of high interest for the project, including writing code for Kamailio and its tools, improving documentation, or discuss about future development. Everyone from the community is welcome to join, developer or user interested in helping the project. Please note we have a limited capacity of seats in the meeting room, the main policy for accepting participants being first come first server. Also, very important to be aware that this is not an event to learn how to use Kamailio. More details about the event, the venue, how to register, are available at: * https://www.kamailio.org/w/developers-meeting/ Looking forward to those two intensive hacking Kamailio days in Dusseldorf! Cheers, Daniel -- Daniel-Constantin Mierla (@ asipto.com) twitter.com/miconda -- linkedin.com/in/miconda Kamailio Consultancy, Training and Development Services -- asipto.com

2 4

apt-key deprecation
by tom＠tomlynn.com 11 Nov '24

11 Nov '24

When I look at the debian repositories maintained by the project, there are instructions to import the public key of the repository for apt using this command: wget -O http://deb.kamailio.org/kamailiodebkey.gpg | sudo apt-key add - which results in: Warning: apt-key is deprecated. Manage keyring files in trusted.gpg.d instead (see apt-key(8)). gpg: no valid OpenPGP data found. Is there an alternate method that can be posted in the repository that will get better results? Thank you, TL

5 5

Error opening Kamailio's FIFO /run/kamailio/kamailio_rpc.fifo
by matilopi17＠gmail.com 01 Nov '24

01 Nov '24

Hello, This is kamailio version 5.8.2 and we`re having this issue every now and then. The error displayed is: ** ERROR: Error opening Kamailio's FIFO /run/kamailio/kamailio_rpc.fifo ** ERROR: Make sure you have loaded the jsonrpcs module and set FIFO transport parameters The problem is that the FIFO file /run/kamailio/kamailio_rpc.fifo doesn't exist, even though the "jsonrpc" module is in the Kamailio configuration, and the file is created when Kamailio service is restarted. But as mentioned, after few days the issue is repeated. I`ll appreciate any suggestion or advice of what I should check. Thank you!

4 5

Failed to parse the R-URI with topoh enabled
by Ale 29 Oct '24

29 Oct '24

Hi All, I think I have a problem with topoh, but I can't identify it. Kamailio 5.6.6, used as a stateless proxy, receives a 487 from a phone and propagates it correctly. Next comes the ack that should be forwarded back to the phone, but instead it doesn't forward it and produces the following error "pv_get_ruri(): failed to parse the R-URI" The error is generated by xlog("...$ru from $fu...\n"") as first line of request_route. If I disable topoh everything works perfectly.Topoh is only configured with mask_key only. Furthermore, not all phones generate this problem, at the moment there are some snoms. ACK sip:user@phone_ip:2048;line=kkqgarrj SIP/2.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP proxy_sip_ip;branch=z9hG4bK2ec.e7126a3134bef9d974f57dd43ebd4ea2.0 Route: <sip:kamailio_ip:5060;lr;received=sip:phone_ip:2048> Max-Forwards: 66 From: <sip:111111111@sip.example.com>;tag=pDc1BQ0B57Ujj To: <sip:user@sip.example.com>;tag=vslvowy4y2 Call-ID: 40a6c905-c0c8-4c20-b3f7-397b3fce58b6 CSeq: 90285584 ACK Content Length: 0 There is no difference between the ACK of the snom and other phones that work. The only difference I noticed is that the snom 487 contains Contact field in the header. Any suggestions? Thank you

3 5

How to handle e2e ACK with t_check_trans()
by Benoit Panizzon 28 Oct '24

28 Oct '24

Hi List To correctly route ACK belonging to a transaction (totag) the example code does: if ( is_method("ACK") ) { if ( t_check_trans() ) { route(RELAY); exit; } else { xlog("L_INFO", "$cfg(route): $rm NOT loose route NO transaction found DROP\n"); exit; } } Unfortunatels I fear that in a parallell forking scenario, the transaction is remove from memory as soon as the first 'negative' ACK is being processed so that the end 2 end ACK to the 200 OK of the branch that connected the call, never makes it through. I attempted to increase wt_timer to 10000 to have the transaction stay around 10 seconds but that does not solve the issue. I read that t_check_trans()'s result shall be considered more as a hint than as a confirmation of an existing transaction. Is there a clean / secure way to process e2e ACK and make sure they belong to a transaction? Or can I just safely remove the t_check_trans() call and route any ACK with a totag? Mit freundlichen Grüssen -Benoît Panizzon- -- I m p r o W a r e A G - Leiter Commerce Kunden ______________________________________________________ Zurlindenstrasse 29 Tel +41 61 826 93 00 CH-4133 Pratteln Fax +41 61 826 93 01 Schweiz Web http://www.imp.ch ______________________________________________________

3 3

Dealing with flood of invalid SIP messages
by mayamatakeshi 27 Oct '24

27 Oct '24

Hi, I was going through some old company tickets that I am assigned to and found a case when possibly an attacker flooded our kamailio server with invalid sip messages like this: 2019-04-27T20:14:05.533554+09:00 IPX051 /usr/local/src/git/sip-router/kamailio[1732]: ERROR: <core> [parser/msg_parser.c:714]: ERROR: parse_msg: message=<[F#016sD#026Z<8D>97<F8><B5>;<A9><E7>-<D2>(<E2><F6> v;/#021k\<CC>8<B1>λ<F4>#004M<B6><BE><EC>#035#003<94><E1>=<A0><FF><E3><AF>Kwzr<8B>A#036B<D7>#027#023cu<82>Y<D4>#037<FB><AC>S_<C4>Qg<AB><DE>F<88>I#006<8C><FA><F4>~#y3G<C7>H<80>b<BC><AD>#035<89>#002<DB><C8>#001U<9E>#007<CB><F9>nT<E5><EE><8E><F1>#0144> At that time we manually banned the IP. But it would be helpful to have this done automatically by fail2ban. So I was thinking this log should include the src IP address. I looked at the latest kamailio commit and core/parser/msg_parser.c does this log the same way so I was thinking in opening an issue for this. But maybe this should be dealt with differently. Any ideas?

4 6

Issue with Retrieving Kamailio Statistics: Missing FIFO File and Errors
by satyaprakash ch 25 Oct '24

25 Oct '24

Hi, I'm encountering an issue while trying to retrieve Kamailio statistics on the server using the command kamctl stats. Instead of the expected output, I am receiving the following errors: kamctl stats: -e \E[37;31mERROR: Error opening Kamailio's FIFO /run/kamailio/kamailio_rpc.fifo -e \E[37;31mERROR: Make sure you have loaded the jsonrpcs module and set FIFO transport parameters Additionally, the file /run/kamailio/kamailio_rpc.fifo does not exist. Could you please provide suggestions ?

3 4

Handeling error returned by rtpengine_manage(...)
by Wolter Eldering 23 Oct '24

23 Oct '24

Hello, I have a question about the rtpengine module and how to use it via KEMI/python. Will processing of the native script stop when rtpengine_manage returns with an error? Or will it continue and will the SDP be forwarded unchanged? #!ifdef WITH_RTPENGINE if(nat_uac_test("8")) { rtpengine_manage("SIP-source-address replace-origin replace-session-connection"); } else { rtpengine_manage("replace-origin replace-session-connection"); } #!else Regards, Wolter

3 4

Kamailio not deleteing rtp sessions
by Tihomir Culjaga 22 Oct '24

22 Oct '24

Hello, I'm using Kamailio + RTPEngine. Everything works well except one thing. I noticed rtp sessions are not being deleted after call termination. Instead, they remain lingering on RTPEngine waiting for a timeout. kamailio --version version: kamailio 5.5.2 (x86_64/linux) 55e232 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, TLS_PTHREAD_MUTEX_SHARED ADAPTIVE_WAIT_LOOPS 1024, MAX_RECV_BUFFER_SIZE 262144, MAX_URI_SIZE 1024, BUF_SIZE 65535, DEFAULT PKG_SIZE 8MB poll method support: poll, epoll_lt, epoll_et, sigio_rt, select. id: 55e232 compiled on 14:13:04 Aug 25 2021 with gcc 8.4.1 rtpengine --version Version: 9.5.1.1-1.el8 rtpengine-ctl list totals tells me every session went to timeout :) --- snip --- Total statistics (does not include current running sessions): Uptime of rtpengine :914 seconds Total managed sessions :51 Total rejected sessions :0 Total timed-out sessions via TIMEOUT :51 Total timed-out sessions via SILENT_TIMEOUT :0 Total timed-out sessions via FINAL_TIMEOUT :0 Total timed-out sessions via OFFER_TIMEOUT :0 Total regular terminated sessions :0 Total forced terminated sessions :0 --- snip --- I'm using rtpengine_manage in two routes "route[RELAY]" and onreply_route[MANAGE_REPLY] . Do I need to add a specific rtpengine_delete somewhere ? route[RELAY] { ... $xavp(r=>$T_branch_idx) = "replace-origin replace-session-connection"; if (!nat_uac_test("8")) { $xavp(r=>$T_branch_idx) = $xavp(r=>$T_branch_idx) + " trust-address"; } if (!has_totag()) { xlog("L_INFO", "NEXIOS: proto = [$proto], ru = [$ru]"); if ($proto =~ "ws" && !($ru =~ "transport=ws")) { xlog("L_INFO", "####################### FROM WS to any ########################\n"); $xavp(r=>$T_branch_idx) = $xavp(r=>$T_branch_idx) + " rtcp-mux-demux DTLS=off SDES-off ICE=remove RTP/AVP direction=external direction=internal"; } else if (!($proto =~ "ws") && $ru =~ "transport=ws") { xlog("L_INFO", "####################### FROM any to WS ########################\n"); setbflag(FLB_TOWEBRTC); $xavp(r=>$T_branch_idx) = $xavp(r=>$T_branch_idx) + " rtcp-mux-offer generate-mid DTLS=active SDES-off ICE=force RTP/SAVPF direction=internal direction=external"; } else if (($proto =~ "udp") && $ru =~ "transport=udp" && $fs =~ "MY_IP2_ADDR") { xlog("L_INFO", "####################### FROM ?? to ?? $ru ########################\n"); } } # we engage RTPEngine if (has_body("application/sdp")) { xlog("L_INFO", "NEXIOS: # $xavp(r=>$T_branch_idx) #\n"); rtpengine_manage($xavp(r=>$T_branch_idx)); } if (!t_relay()) { sl_reply_error(); } exit; } onreply_route[MANAGE_REPLY] { ... $xavp(r=>$T_branch_idx) = "replace-origin replace-session-connection"; if (!nat_uac_test("8")) { $xavp(r=>$T_branch_idx) = $xavp(r=>$T_branch_idx) + " trust-address"; } if (has_totag()) { xlog("L_INFO", "onreply_route proto = [$proto], ru = [$ru]"); if ($proto =~ "ws" && !($ru =~ "transport=ws")) { xlog("L_INFO", "onreply_route ####################### FROM WS to any ########################\n"); $xavp(r=>$T_branch_idx) = $xavp(r=>$T_branch_idx) + " rtcp-mux-demux DTLS=off SDES-off ICE=remove RTP/AVP direction=external direction=internal"; } else if (!($proto =~ "ws") && $ru =~ "transport=ws") { xlog("L_INFO", "onreply_route ####################### FROM any to WS ########################\n"); setbflag(FLB_TOWEBRTC); $xavp(r=>$T_branch_idx) = $xavp(r=>$T_branch_idx) + " rtcp-mux-offer generate-mid DTLS=active SDES-off ICE=force RTP/SAVPF direction=internal direction=external"; } else if (($proto =~ "udp") && $ru =~ "transport=udp" && $fs =~ "MY_IP2_ADDR") { xlog("L_INFO", "onreply_route ####################### FROM ?? to ?? $ru ########################\n"); } } if (has_body("application/sdp")) { xlog("L_INFO", "onreply_route # $xavp(r=>$T_branch_idx) #\n"); rtpengine_manage($xavp(r=>$T_branch_idx)); } } Any ideas are appreciated. Regards, Tihomir.

4 6

parallel forking: how to fix 183 g711 then 200 ok g722?
by Benoit Panizzon 21 Oct '24

21 Oct '24

Hi Gang Parallel forking situation. A => B A => C A invites with g711,g722 which is forked to B and C B reports ringing by sending 183 + SDP g711 C report 180 ringing. C establishes connection 200 OK + SDP g722 https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3261.html#page-78 o If the initial offer is in an INVITE, the answer MUST be in a reliable non-failure message from UAS back to UAC which is correlated to that INVITE. For this specification, that is only the final 2xx response to that INVITE. That same exact answer MAY also be placed in any provisional responses sent prior to the answer. The UAC MUST treat the first session description it receives as the answer, and MUST ignore any session descriptions in subsequent responses to the initial INVITE. Now we run into the situation in which A received the 183 g711 and being RFC compliant, dropped the 2nd SDP from the 200 OK. => No audio! Has anyone encountered this situation and found a nice solution? Like generating an UPDATE or RE-INVITE towards A to change the codec in an RFC compliant way after the call is established? Or is the only solution to remove all codecs except the required g711a one when more than one contact are registered on an AOR? Mit freundlichen Grüssen -Benoît Panizzon- -- I m p r o W a r e A G - Leiter Commerce Kunden ______________________________________________________ Zurlindenstrasse 29 Tel +41 61 826 93 00 CH-4133 Pratteln Fax +41 61 826 93 01 Schweiz Web http://www.imp.ch ______________________________________________________

3 5

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 October 2024