sr-users June 2024

sr-users@lists.kamailio.org

37 participants
47 discussions

Ubuntu 24.04 Packages for Kamailio 5.8 on deb.kamailio.org
by Xenofon Karamanos 28 Jun '24

28 Jun '24

Any news on regarding the availability and status of Kamailio packages for Ubuntu 24.04 on the official Kamailio repository at deb.kamailio.org. Are there any plans to support this version of Ubuntu with updated packages? If so, is there an estimated timeline for when these packages might become available? Thanks, Xenofon ________________________________ From: Xenofon Karamanos via sr-dev <sr-dev(a)lists.kamailio.org> Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2024 11:51 To: sr-dev(a)lists.kamailio.org Cc: Xenofon Karamanos <xk(a)gilawa.com> Subject: [sr-dev] Ubuntu 24.04 Packages for Kamailio 5.8 on deb.kamailio.org Hey everybody, While attempting to use the official Ubuntu package for Kamailio version 5.7.4 on Ubunut 24.04, we encountered an issue where TLS functionality does not seem to work as expected but 5.8 branch does. Given this, I am inquiring about the availability and status of Kamailio packages for Ubuntu 24.04 on the official Kamailio repository at deb.kamailio.org. Are there any plans to support this version of Ubuntu with updated packages? If so, is there an estimated timeline for when these packages might become available? Thank you in advance for your assistance. Best regards, Xenofon

1 0

replies using the wrong protocol
by sarah.martin＠nextiva.com 27 Jun '24

27 Jun '24

I am extremely new at this, but trying to set up TLS with a carrier. TLS connection is good, Invite goes out, we get the 100 and the 200, but subsequent messages (ACK and BYE) are being sent with UDP and I cannot figure out how to get them to maintain the TLS transport. Any suggestions? I think this is the section I'm looking for. # Manage incoming replies in transaction context onreply_route[MANAGE_REPLY] { xdbg("incoming reply\n"); if(status=~"[12][0-9][0-9]") { route(NATMANAGE); } if (has_body("application/sdp")) { xdbg("rtpengine_manage loop-protect MANAGE_REPLY"); #rtpengine_manage("loop-protect"); } }

6 21

Kamailio cannot forward request - invalid sendtoparameters
by serkan celik 27 Jun '24

27 Jun '24

Hi all, I face a problem when trying to forward an UPDATE request to the IMS which communicates with UDP transport protocol on one side UDP and SCTP on other side. When I try to send UPDATE towards the UDP side of IMs I see following error on kamailio side and request cannot be forwarded Jun 25 16:19:18 prashant-0lk-sbc-1 /usr/sbin/kamailio[1223341]: ERROR: <core> [core/udp_server.c:597]: udp_send(): sendto(sock, buf: 0x7fc180deb5f0, len: 1509, 0, dst: (172.18.0.20:5060), tolen: 16) - err: Invalid argument (22) Jun 25 16:19:18 prashant-0lk-sbc-1 /usr/sbin/kamailio[1223341]: CRITICAL: <core> [core/udp_server.c:603]: udp_send(): invalid sendtoparameters#012one possible reason is the server is bound to localhost and#012attempts to send to the net The UPDATE message which is tried to be forwarded is as follow: Here there are double rr one is UDP and one is sctp (Route: < sip:mt@172.18.0.20;lr;did=6aa.aaa;ftag=49IZjY2irfb;r2=on>, < sip:mt@172.18.0.20;lr;transport=sctp;did=6aa.aaa;ftag=49IZjY2irfb;r2=on>) ) That would be great if you can help why this UPDATE cannot be forwarded. By the way double rr is on on kamailio config Jun 25 16:19:18 prashant-0lk-sbc-1 /usr/sbin/kamailio[1223341]: DEBUG: <core> [core/forward.c:577]: forward_request(): Sending:#012UPDATE sip:alice@10.10.141.188;ob;sbc-id=xpllrk47odqh4pb2ofpib6vsym SIP/2.0#015#012Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 127.0.0.1:50601;branch=z9hG4bKddab.3554948ce3cfe321729448a2b082c2f3.0#015#012Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 127.0.0.1:7060;branch=z9hG4bKnHN8Q3ya#015#012To: < sip:alice@ims.wingcon.com>;tag=49IZjY2irfb#015#012From: < sip:bob@ims.wingcon.com>;tag=hfdqjj2pmui#015#012Call-Id: 3mzzecWt3Cbgvy#015#012CSeq: 1 UPDATE#015#012Max-Forwards: 70#015#012Contact: <sip:bob@10.10.141.188;ob;sbc-id=o7dpxe7qu2r34zwzio5pis2vqi>#015#012Content-Type: application/sdp#015#012Route: <sip:mt@172.18.0.20;lr;did=6aa.aaa;ftag=49IZjY2irfb;r2=on>, <sip:mt@172.18.0.20;lr;transport=sctp;did=6aa.aaa;ftag=49IZjY2irfb;r2=on>, < sip:mo@172.18.0.20;lr;did=6aa.9aa;ftag=49IZjY2irfb;r2=on>, < sip:mo@172.18.0.20;lr;transport=sctp;did=6aa.9aa;ftag=49IZjY2irfb;r2=on>, < sip:mo@172.18.0.120;lr>#015#012Session-Expires: 180;refresher=uas#015#012Supported: replaces, 100rel, timer, norefersub#015#012Min-SE: 90#015#012P-Charging-Vector: icid-value=e277783432fd11efba03fa163eed425f;icid-generated-at=172.18.0.120;orig-ioi=172.18.0.120;term-ioi=172.18.0.120#015#012User-Agent: PJSUA v2.14 Linux-5.4.0.172/x86_64/glibc-2.35#015#012Content-Length: 409#015#012#015#012v=0#015#012o=- 3928313948 3928313950 IN IP4 172.18.0.120#015#012s=pjmedia#015#012b=AS:84#015#012t=0 0#015#012a=X-nat:0#015#012m=audio 30106 RTP/AVP 8 96 97 121 120#015#012c=IN IP4 172.18.0.120#015#012b=TIAS:64000#015#012a=ssrc:1986855169 cname:1fca52e812ced466#015#012a=rtpmap:8 PCMA/8000#015#012a=rtpmap:96 AMR/8000#015#012a=rtpmap:97 AMR-WB/16000#015#012a=rtpmap:121 telephone-event/16000#015#012a=fmtp:121 0-16#015#012a=rtpmap:120 telephone-event/8000#015#012a=fmtp:120 0-16#015#012a=sendrecv#015#012a=rtcp:30107#015#012. Regards Serkan

1 0

Handling final response retransmissions after a reInvite
by hollis.rhonda＠gmail.com 26 Jun '24

26 Jun '24

I have a scenario where Kamailio is receiving a retransmit of a 200 OK to a late offer INVITE after it has sent the ACK, and after it has begun to handle a reInvite from the calling party. This results in the following commands to the rtpengine: Offer (reInvite), Offer (200 retransmit), Answer (ACK to retransmitted 200). At this point, I see STUN binding errors both in Chrome, where the webRTC client (called party) is running, and in the rtpengine logs. ERROR:port.cc(498)]: Received STUN BINDING error response: class=4 number=1 reason='Unauthorized' [core] STUN authentication mismatch from x.x.x.x:63396 [ice] Received ICE/STUN response code 487 for candidate pair dl2efuRG06eK4nFs:2713745946:1 from x.x.x.x::64509 to x.x.x.x [ice] ICE role change, now controlled [ice] Recalculating all ICE pair priorities [ice] Triggering check for dl2efuRG06eK4nFs:2713745946:1 [ice] ICE/STUN response with unknown transaction received (from x.x.x.x:64509 on interface x.x.x.x:16184) So, briefly, the call flow up to the point of error looks like this: INVITE w/o SDP 200 OK w/SDP, Offer to rtpengine ACK w/SDP, Answer to rtpengine reInvite w/SDP, Offer to rtpengine retransmission of 200 OK, Offer to rtpengine ACK to retransmitted 200, Answer to rtpengine I have dialog tracking enabled in my config, and it seems like Kamailio is behaving as expected when the retransmitted 200 and ACK are forwarded on, but I'm curious if other people have run into a scenario like this and how they have dealt with it.

1 0

Need help on how to implement presence_xml
by Michel Pelletier 25 Jun '24

25 Jun '24

Hello, I need to implement Event: presence, application/pidf+xml as described in RFC-3856. I understand I need to use the presence_xml module and generate PUBLISH requests to update the information and ensure that the NOTIFY get sent. I know nothing abour XCAP or wether I need it or not. Any information source out there that could help me? Regards, Michel Pelletier

1 0

TLS: client doesn't check certificate CN
by Marat Gareev 20 Jun '24

20 Jun '24

Hello, I noticed that Kamailio can route either to IP and FQDN. This means the server certificate CN is not checked by the client. How to enable something like the 'verify_peer' option? Thanks

1 0

Possibility to print values of Core Keywords in Kamailio configuration file
by sadik.oualla.mohamed＠gmail.com 20 Jun '24

20 Jun '24

Hello everyone, I have a question regarding the usage of core keywords, specifically the possibility of printing their values in log messages. While I understand that core keywords such as 'dst_port' and 'af' etc... can be accessed directly in if conditions, I am interested to know if there is a way to print the values of these core keywords for logging purposes. Thank you.

4 6

Re: exec concurrency
by Jon Bonilla (Manwe) 19 Jun '24

19 Jun '24

El Wed, 19 Jun 2024 11:54:05 -0500 Brett Nemeroff <brett(a)voicefoxtelephony.com> escribió: > What you should expect using this method is blocking while the exec runs > which could run you out of child processes while they complete. I'd also > expect to see an "unusual amount of CPU activity" which will be the result > of the forked shells being created and destroyed. > > All of that being said, yes it works. It's architecturally overly simple > and very inefficient. If your load is tiny, it might be ok. Anything > moderate like Henning and others have said, will use an inordinate amount > of cpu. I would not personally risk it. > > Thank you Brett, Henning and Alex Sadly the load won't be tiny and cannot risk it. For now I'll deploy a local nginx and fpm to run the scripts, which are in php, and will use the http_async method. Sadly we have to "http all the things" nowadays. Let's see if I'm able to write down all the logic tomorrow and do some testing. cheers, Jon -- PekePBX, the multitenant PBX solution https://pekepbx.com

1 0

Adding custom headers to HTTP server response xhttp
by Sasivarunan 19 Jun '24

19 Jun '24

HI Team, I use tls and xhttp module to enable websocket interface for webrtc client to connect. I wanted to add "Strict-Transport-Security" header to xhttp response to add security. But currently I don't see a way to add it anywhere. I can see only server_header as an option, But this will get added to SIP messages as well. It 'd be great if anybody has a suggestion around this. Thanks Varunan

2 2

Re: exec concurrency
by Jon Bonilla (Manwe) 19 Jun '24

19 Jun '24

El Tue, 18 Jun 2024 13:54:41 -0500 Brett Nemeroff <brett(a)voicefoxtelephony.com> escribió: > Just want to add that exec is heavy and slow. I would not recommend it. > > Is there a reason you want to do this over http-ifying your script and > using async? > > Not really. The scripts are provided. Maybe I'm against "http all the things" which seems to be what everyone does nowadays. Why would http client be lighter than executing a script? That would be a design problem, right? -- PekePBX, the multitenant PBX solution https://pekepbx.com

2 1

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 June 2024