sr-users May 2024

sr-users@lists.kamailio.org

50 participants
60 discussions

by Juha Heinanen

I noticed that sql_query does not (anymore) work when called from event route: event_route [tcp:closed] { # Handle TCP connection close # Delete possible leftover registration if ($conid) sql_query("sip_proxy_cache", "DELETE FROM location WHERE server_id=0 AND connection_id=$conid", "result"); } The query produces errors: 2024-05-07T11:30:14.785915+03:00 siika /usr/bin/sip-proxy[2848078]: CRITICAL: sqlops [sqlops.c:213]: sql_check_connection(): no database handle with reconnect disabled 2024-05-07T11:30:14.785978+03:00 siika /usr/bin/sip-proxy[2848078]: ERROR: sqlops [sqlops.c:232]: sql_query(): invalid connection to database 2024-05-07T11:30:14.786013+03:00 siika /usr/bin/sip-proxy[2848078]: ERROR: sqlops [sqlops.c:237]: sql_query(): with query [DELETE FROM location WHERE server_id=0 AND connection_id=7] I added the last debug message in order to find out where the error comes from. The same query works fine when executed from regular route. Any ideas why the query fails from event_route? -- Juha

6 months, 2 weeks

How to use environment variable

by Pavan Kumar

Hi everyone, I am trying to assign environment variable as follows listen=udp:0.0.0.0:5060 advertise $env(MY_IP):5060 Looks like using the environment variable as above is an invalid configuration. Is there a way to use IP from env var to advertise. Even better, is there a way to use result in a stun query as an advertised address? Thank you, Pavan Kumar

6 months, 2 weeks

Retransmission behaviour after ACK

by Sergio Charrua

Hi all! I'm testing some redirect scenarios with Kamailio 5.7.4 and using Astterisk 13 and SIPp for unit testing. The kamailio's script is simple and uses TM, HTTP_ASYNC_MODULE, JSONRPC, JANSSON, RTJSON and XLog modules. Request route is simple: request_route { route(HANDLE_OPTIONS); route(HANDLE_RETRANS); route(HANDLE_CANCEL); route(REQINIT); route(HANDLE_INVITE); } where HANDLE_RETRANS is: route[HANDLE_RETRANS]{ # handle retransmissions xlog("L_INFO","HANDLE_RETRANS - message type is $mt for method $rm"); if (!is_method("ACK")) { if(t_precheck_trans()) { xlog("L_INFO","HANDLE_RETRANS - Precheck Trans"); t_check_trans(); xlog("L_INFO", "HANDLE_RETRANS - Exiting after Retransmission check - method $rm"); exit; } xlog("L_INFO","HANDLE_RETRANS - Check Trans"); t_check_trans(); } } and HANDLE INVITE is: route[HANDLE_INVITE]{ if (is_method("INVITE")) { xlog("L_INFO","MAIN - calling TO_CARRIER"); setflag(FLT_ACC); route(TO_CARRIER); exit; } } The HTTP requests call a REST API returning a JSON object, that is iterated and produces a CONTACT header containing multiple choices using the append_branch() command. The RELAY route is : route[RELAY] { # Sends a 300 Multiple Choices back to the proxy that requested the routing lookup xlog("L_INFO","REPLY_302 - send reply"); send_reply("300", "Multiple Choices"); xlog("L_INFO","REPLY_302 - exit"); exit; } Which returns indeed a Contact header with multiple contact choices. When using Asterisk to originate a call to Kamailio, the SIP call flow is as follows and terminates (SNGrep and TCPDump do not detect anything else): SRC DST INVITE (SDP) ──────────────────────────> 100 trying -- your call is <────────────────────────── 300 Multiple Choices <────────────────────────── ACK ──────────────────────────> However when using SIPp I get some retransmissions after the final ACK. SRC DST INVITE (SDP) ──────────────────────────> 100 trying -- your call is <────────────────────────── 300 Multiple Choices <────────────────────────── ACK ──────────────────────────> 300 Multiple Choices <<<──────────────────────── 300 Multiple Choices <<<──────────────────────── 300 Multiple Choices <<<──────────────────────── SIPp scenario is : <?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1" ?> <!DOCTYPE scenario SYSTEM "sipp.dtd"> <scenario name="Basic Sipstone UAC">   <send retrans="500" start_rtd="true" rrs="true"> <![CDATA[ INVITE sip:[call_number]@[remote_ip]:[remote_port] SIP/2.0 Via: SIP/2.0/[transport] [local_ip]:[local_port];branch=[branch] Max-Forwards: 70 From: sipp <sip:sipp@[local_ip]:[local_port]>;tag=[call_number] To: <sip:[call_number]@[remote_ip]:[remote_port]> Contact: sip:sipp@[local_ip]:[local_port];transport=[transport]> Call-ID: [call_id] CSeq: 102 INVITE User-Agent: SIPp Supported: replaces, timer Content-Type: application/sdp Subject: Performance Test Session-Expires: 3600;refresher=uas Content-Length: [len] v=0 o=user1 53655765 2353687637 IN IP[local_ip_type] [local_ip] s=SIPp c=IN IP[media_ip_type] [media_ip] t=0 0 m=audio [media_port] RTP/AVP 0 a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000 ]]> </send> <recv response="100" rss="true"> </recv> <recv response="300" rtd="true" rss="true"> <action> <ereg regexp="\<([a-zA-Z0-9@.=;]+)[^>]+" search_in="hdr" header="Contact: " assign_to="1"/> <log message="INFO: 300 Contact Header: [$1]" /> <exec command="echo [$1] >> ./300_ContactHeader.txt" /> </action> <action> <ereg regexp="sip:.*@([0-9A-Za-z\.]+):([0-9]+);transport=([A-Z]+)" search_in="hdr" header="Contact:" check_it="true" assign_to="dummy,host,port,transport" /> </action> </recv>   <send rrs="true"> <![CDATA[ ACK sip:[call_number]@[remote_ip]:[remote_port] SIP/2.0 Via: SIP/2.0/[transport] [local_ip]:[local_port];branch=[branch] Max-Forwards: 70 From: <sip:sipp@[local_ip]:[local_port]>;tag=[call_number] To: <sip:[call_number]@[remote_ip]:[remote_port]>[peer_tag_param] Contact: <sip:sipp@[local_ip]:[local_port]> Call-ID: [call_id] CSeq: 102 ACK User-Agent: SIPp Content-Length: 0 ]]> </send>   </scenario> The question is : is there anything wrong with my kamailio script? or with SIPp scenario? why does kamailio have different behaviours between Asterisk and SIPp? Any option to disable retransmissions on Kamailio ? (using UDP) Thanks in advance, *Sérgio Charrua*

6 months, 2 weeks

topos with mask_callid

by Marrold

Hi all, I am using Kamailio 5.8.1 on a Debian 12 machine with topos and topoh hiding the topology. I have observed with modparam("topos", "mask_callid", 1), in-dialog requests are relayed with the incorrect caller-id. In the scenario, A calls B. The call is set up and the call-id for the B-Leg is successfully masked. Then, when A sends a BYE, the BYE is incorrectly relayed to B with the call-id of the A leg, and B replies with a 481 If I disable masking the call-id, or disable topos/topoh entirely, everything looks and works as it should. I have tested with 5.7.4 and the behaviour is the same. Does anyone have any ideas for where I should start looking? Thanks Matthew

6 months, 2 weeks

Re: IMS SCSCF redundancy

by Oleg Belousov

Hi. I have a question re: IMS SCSCF redundancy.:There are several SCSCF instances, registration happens via SCSCF1, it goes down after that. UE make MO call.. PCSCF resolves the common SCSCF fqdn and sends an invite to available SCSCF2 which does not have UE profile as well as AS address (which is received during registration SAR/SAA in iFC). There are 2 options here, either to release the call (as per 3gpp spec upon specific release code, eg 408/503 UE should perform re-registration - not happen in our case unfortunately), or to send request for iFC (suspend the call, fire SAR, receive SAA, check available services, etc) and upon success continue the call (to AS first)/ Lke IMS Registrar SCSCF save function, but for the invite. To continue the call without interaction with AS is not a good idea.. Any advice or workaround on how to achieve desired SCSCF redundancy ? -- obelousov.tel

6 months, 3 weeks

http_async_client and sl_send_reply()

by Masud Muborakshohi

Hello! I have a problem when sending a response sl_send_reply("415", "The other party does not support video calling!"); in route[HTTP_REPLY]. When I make a request using http_async_query() to send a push notification to a mobile device, I need to process the response from the push server and respond with a SIP message to the client. Before sending the request I do $http_req(suspend) = 0; What am I doing wrong? Why are $fU and $ru equal to null ? #processing HTTP responses route[HTTP_REPLY] { if ($http_ok && $http_rs == 200) { xlog("L_INFO", "route[HTTP_REPLY]: status $http_rs\n"); xlog("L_INFO", "route[HTTP_REPLY]: body $http_rb\n"); } else if($http_rs == 415 || $http_rs == "415") { xlog("L_ERR", "route[HTTP_REPLY]: caller: $fU phone: $ru error: $http_err)\n"); send_reply("415", "The other party does not support video calling!"); } else { xlog("L_ALERT", "route[HTTP_REPLY]: error $http_err)\n"); } #exit; }

6 months, 3 weeks

No ACK from Kamailio

by Arseniy Moskvich

Hi everyone. We are new to Kamailio and using Kamailio 5.8 with FreeSwitch. We have the issue with the incoming call from our provider. They are dropping after 30 seconds. The client doesn't receive ACK from Kamailio. But FreeSwitch sends ACK to Kamailio. The outbound call is working fine. At the moment flow is our provider -> FreeSwitch -> Kamailio -> our web client. Could someone give us some directions please? Please find attached Kemi.py. Thank you so much in advance

6 months, 3 weeks

Kamailio works but voice is not present during the calls!

by christian.marinelli＠hotmail.it

Hi all, i have a problem with my Kamailio SIP Server. I set up a Kamailio SIP server in a virtual machine on a private network and i connect to this with a WireGuard VPN. The problem is that i can connect to the SIP server throught different clients and users and i can call the other users, the devices ring and i can answer to the calls but unfortunatly there is no audio during the call :( I can't understand why, it seems all si OK, a year ago i set up another SIP server with the same configuration and all works correctly with it. Can anyone help me to understand why? I can copy and paste here all the config files if you need it. Thank you so much in advance Christian

6 months, 3 weeks

AEM Implementation Services,

by surekhatech.seo＠gmail.com

As an Official Adobe Bronze Solution Partner, we specialize in AEM development services, consulting, implementation, migration, and cloud services for your business.

6 months, 3 weeks

Question: if SIP Timer L and Timer M from RFC6026 has been defined at Kamailio

by jennifer yang

Hello Can anyone help answer these questions: - if SIP Timer L and Timer M from RFC6026 has been defined at Kamailio (version v5.5.x)? Timer L: Wait time for accepted INVITE request retransmits Timer M: Wait time for retransmission of 2xx to INVITE or additional 2xx from other branches of a forked INVITE - if no specific Timer defined, which timer will be used instead? thanks br jenni

6 months, 3 weeks

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 May 2024