sr-users March 2025

sr-users@lists.kamailio.org

44 participants
34 discussions

DMQ read message too large
by Calvin E. 31 Mar '25

31 Mar '25

We are seeing errors like this when synchronizing htables over DMQ: ERROR: <core> [core/udp_server.c:677]: udp_rcv_loop(): read message too large: 60793 We have no issues with other UDP fragments caused by STIR/SHAKEN headers. Our socket buffers are sufficiently large (SO_RCVBUF is initially 26214400). Does DMQ have a receive message size limit less than what it can send? Is DMQ intended for htables under a certain total size? We tried to configure DMQ to use a TCP listener with ;… [View More]

2 3

Intermediate CDRs
by Sergio Charrua 31 Mar '25

31 Mar '25

Hi all! I have been googling, and reading documentation, but I could not find any solution. How can I implement intermediate CDRs with Kamailio ACC module (or any other module) ? For example, on long duration calls, I 'm required to save call status on a CDR, resulting in intermediate CDR lines for the call (which will result in multiple CDR lines per long duration calls). Any clue on how to implement this? Did anyone achieved that with Kamailio ACC module? Atenciosamente / Kind Regards / … [View More]

4 3

Multiple code modules
by David Cunningham 28 Mar '25

28 Mar '25

Hello, We have a requirement to load two code modules for use by kamailio.cfg, the reason being that we can't (won't, for business reasons) modify the first module and so need to add a second for our own code. Ideally we would load two Perl modules instead of the single module that's currently loaded like this: modparam( "app_perl", "filename", "/path/to/our/custom/Kamailio.pm" ) But I'm not sure how to load two modules like this. Otherwise, does anyone know if it's safe to load both a Perl … [View More]

1 0

[ratelimit module] doubts about behavior
by juliofabian6385＠hotmail.es 26 Mar '25

26 Mar '25

I am reading https://kamailio.org/docs/modules/devel/modules/ratelimit.html and I want Kamailio, before an avalanche of calls (INVITE), to start discarding calls that exceed a threshold in 1 second, for example. So in summary I have prepared the module as follows: loadmodule "ratelimit.so" modparam("ratelimit", "timer_interval",1) modparam("ratelimit", "pipe", "1:TAILDROP:10") request_route { . . if (is_method("INVITE")) { if (!rl_check_pipe("1")) { sl_send_reply("503","… [View More]Limiting"); exit; } } . . } As I understand from the documentation, this gives me a counter (one per INVITE) equal to 10, which resets after 1 second. In other words, if I receive 30 INVITES in 1 second, it will discard 20. From here, I have two questions between what I understand and what I see in the logs. FIRST QUESTION: I've made several SIPP calls in one second. I've run several tests, and the first reset of the counter always happens approximately timer_interval/2. From then on, the counter resets exactly every timer_interval. Am I doing something wrong? ########## RUNNING LOGS ########## 2025-03-26T18:59:20.509696381Z 0(1) DEBUG: <core> [core/cfg.y:2165]: yyparse(): loading module ratelimit.so 2025-03-26T18:59:20.509698675Z 0(1) DEBUG: <core> [core/sr_module.c:533]: ksr_locate_module(): found module to load </usr/lib/kamailio/modules/ratelimit.so> 2025-03-26T18:59:20.509702249Z 0(1) DEBUG: <core> [core/sr_module.c:587]: ksr_load_module(): trying to load </usr/lib/kamailio/modules/ratelimit.so> 2025-03-26T18:59:20.509704682Z 0(1) DEBUG: <core> [core/kemi.c:3463]: sr_kemi_modules_add(): adding module: ratelimit 2025-03-26T18:59:20.509707031Z 0(1) DEBUG: <core> [core/cfg.lex:2095]: pp_define(): defining id: MOD_ratelimit 2025-03-26T18:59:20.509815384Z 0(1) DEBUG: <core> [core/modparam.c:112]: set_mod_param_regex(): 'ratelimit' matches module 'ratelimit' 2025-03-26T18:59:20.509817770Z 0(1) DEBUG: <core> [core/sr_module.c:850]: find_param_export(): found <timer_interval> in module ratelimit [/usr/lib/kamailio/modules/ratelimit.so] 2025-03-26T18:59:20.509820319Z 0(1) DEBUG: <core> [core/modparam.c:135]: set_mod_param_regex(): found <timer_interval> in module ratelimit [/usr/lib/kamailio/modules/ratelimit.so] 2025-03-26T18:59:20.509822755Z 0(1) DEBUG: <core> [core/modparam.c:112]: set_mod_param_regex(): 'ratelimit' matches module 'ratelimit' 2025-03-26T18:59:20.509825068Z 0(1) DEBUG: <core> [core/sr_module.c:850]: find_param_export(): found <pipe> in module ratelimit [/usr/lib/kamailio/modules/ratelimit.so] 2025-03-26T18:59:20.509827468Z 0(1) DEBUG: <core> [core/modparam.c:135]: set_mod_param_regex(): found <pipe> in module ratelimit [/usr/lib/kamailio/modules/ratelimit.so] 2025-03-26T18:59:20.509829943Z 0(1) DEBUG: ratelimit [ratelimit.c:925]: parse_pipe_params(): pipe: [1|TAILDROP|10] 2025-03-26T18:59:20.510800378Z 0(1) DEBUG: <core> [core/sr_module.c:758]: find_mod_export_record(): found export of <rl_check_pipe> in module ratelimit [/usr/lib/kamailio/modules/ratelimit.so] 2025-03-26T18:59:20.519776933Z 0(1) DEBUG: <core> [core/sr_module.c:1031]: init_mod(): ratelimit ########## LOGS WHEN APPLY RATELIMIT ########## 2025-03-26T19:01:02.095676663Z 1(7) DEBUG: {1 1 INVITE 1-1(a)192.168.100.15} ratelimit [ratelimit.c:861]: w_rl_check_forced_pipe(): trying pipe 1 2025-03-26T19:01:02.095679040Z 1(7) DEBUG: {1 1 INVITE 1-1(a)192.168.100.15} ratelimit [ratelimit.c:830]: rl_check(): meth=INVITE queue=0 pipe=1 algo=2 limit=10 pkg_load=0 counter=1 load=0.0 network_load=0 => ACCEPT . . 2025-03-26T19:01:02.272879226Z 2(8) DEBUG: {1 1 INVITE 10-1(a)192.168.100.15} ratelimit [ratelimit.c:861]: w_rl_check_forced_pipe(): trying pipe 1 2025-03-26T19:01:02.272881671Z 2(8) DEBUG: {1 1 INVITE 10-1(a)192.168.100.15} ratelimit [ratelimit.c:830]: rl_check(): meth=INVITE queue=0 pipe=1 algo=2 limit=10 pkg_load=0 counter=10 load=0.0 network_load=0 => ACCEPT 2025-03-26T19:01:02.292599816Z 2(8) DEBUG: {1 1 INVITE 11-1(a)192.168.100.15} ratelimit [ratelimit.c:861]: w_rl_check_forced_pipe(): trying pipe 1 2025-03-26T19:01:02.292602425Z 2(8) DEBUG: {1 1 INVITE 11-1(a)192.168.100.15} ratelimit [ratelimit.c:830]: rl_check(): meth=INVITE queue=0 pipe=1 algo=2 limit=10 pkg_load=0 counter=11 load=0.0 network_load=0 => DROP . . 2025-03-26T19:01:02.492680874Z 1(7) DEBUG: {1 1 INVITE 21-1(a)192.168.100.15} ratelimit [ratelimit.c:861]: w_rl_check_forced_pipe(): trying pipe 1 2025-03-26T19:01:02.492694107Z 1(7) DEBUG: {1 1 INVITE 21-1(a)192.168.100.15} ratelimit [ratelimit.c:830]: rl_check(): meth=INVITE queue=0 pipe=1 algo=2 limit=10 pkg_load=0 counter=21 load=0.0 network_load=0 => DROP 2025-03-26T19:01:02.513079779Z 2(8) DEBUG: {1 1 INVITE 22-1(a)192.168.100.15} ratelimit [ratelimit.c:861]: w_rl_check_forced_pipe(): trying pipe 1 2025-03-26T19:01:02.513088852Z 2(8) DEBUG: {1 1 INVITE 22-1(a)192.168.100.15} ratelimit [ratelimit.c:830]: rl_check(): meth=INVITE queue=0 pipe=1 algo=2 limit=10 pkg_load=0 counter=22 load=0.0 network_load=0 => DROP 2025-03-26T19:01:02.532804253Z 1(7) DEBUG: {1 1 INVITE 23-1(a)192.168.100.15} ratelimit [ratelimit.c:861]: w_rl_check_forced_pipe(): trying pipe 1 2025-03-26T19:01:02.532808087Z 1(7) DEBUG: {1 1 INVITE 23-1(a)192.168.100.15} ratelimit [ratelimit.c:830]: rl_check(): meth=INVITE queue=0 pipe=1 algo=2 limit=10 pkg_load=2 counter=1 load=0.1 network_load=0 => ACCEPT When the countdown restarts, it's "19:01:02.53" hours, and when it started, it was "19:01:02.09" hours. It doesn't reach the second. The drop system works well, but if my limit was 25 calls, I would have accepted the 22 I counted in the first second, plus the other 25 from the second number 2. Second question: There's a warning about a performance penalty in Kamailio when timer_interval is too small, so I've decided to set it to 2 just for practical purposes. So what should happen is that the counter would accept up to 10 calls in 2 seconds. But in the logs, what I see is the opposite: it accepts 20 calls in 2 seconds. Maybe it's supposed to work that way, and I'm misunderstanding the documentation? As optional information: Kamailio is running on a Google virtual machine, 12MB of RAM, 3 processors, 2 of which are dedicated. I'm using SIPP for load testing, and different call rates have been validated before testing the module. Sorry if my first post in this community was too long or is there more information missing :) . Thanks in advance [View Less]

1 0

kamailio call redirect
by fabienbrou＠alcall.net 26 Mar '25

26 Mar '25

Hello everyone. I'm trying to redirect a call directly through kamailio by modifying the $ru variable. Just wondering if this is the right method or if there is a better way to do it. thanks

4 13

is possible empty actions?
by Sergey Safarov 26 Mar '25

26 Mar '25

I want to use contributions like route[PROXY_MEDIA] { if (is_method("BYE|CANCEL")) { # passing message for RTPengine processing } else if (!sdp_content()) { return; } # more instructions here ... rtpengine_manage(); } Now Kamailio cannot start because first if block has empty actions. How does nothing in the actions? I want to avoid not needed log messages and do not use constructions like if (!sdp_content() and ! is_method("BYE|CANCEL")) { return; }

3 2

Seeking advices on redesigning our VoIP system for scalability and manageability
by Francesco 26 Mar '25

26 Mar '25

Dear all, I hope this email finds you well. I am reaching out to gather insights and suggestions regarding a potential redesign of our VoIP system to improve scalability, ease of management, and upgradeability. *Current Setup:* - Our system is *not multi-tenant* and is based on *Kamailio and FreeSWITCH* in a distributed architecture (as example of distributed architecture, see: https://ufdcimages.uflib.ufl.edu/UF/E0/04/92/89/00001/THOMPSON_C.pdf). - Everything runs inside *LXC … [View More]

3 2

TOPOS Issue with Response Handling on two different Interfaces
by Vinayak Makwana 25 Mar '25

25 Mar '25

Hello all, We are facing an issue while configuring TOPOS in Kamailio P-CSCF (running under Docker). Our objective is to strip Via, Record-Route, and Route headers for both INVITE and 180 Ringing responses. However, we observe unexpected behavior when handling the 180 Ringing/200 OK responses. Call Flow & Issue Description: Note: Public IP and Private IP mapping using the below configuration. listen=udp:Local_IP:5060 name "internal" listen=udp:Local_IP:6070 advertise Public_IP:6070 name "… [View More]external" Call Flow (INVITE): A-Party --> Kamailio P-CSCF (Public IP) --> Kamailio P-CSCF (Private IP) --> Kamailio S-CSCF (Private IP) --> Kamailio P-CSCF (Private IP) --> Kamailio P-CSCF (Public IP) --> B-Party For an incoming *INVITE* (A-Party → B-Party), TOPOS successfully strips the headers when the message flows through the P-CSCF, ensuring proper privacy of routing information. *Issue* : When B-Party sends a 180 Ringing, we observe that Kamailio P-CSCF (Private IP) adds a Record-Route header before forwarding the message to A-Party. Call Flow (180 Ringing): B-Party --> Kamailio P-CSCF (Public IP) --> Kamailio P-CSCF (Private IP) --> Kamailio S-CSCF (Private IP) We need to ensure that the Record-Route and Via headers are stripped properly in both directions. Please guide us how to achieve and what we are doing wrong. TOPOS module is configured as follows: modparam("ndb_redis", "server", "name=srv1;addr=127.0.0.1;port=6379") modparam("topos_redis", "serverid", "srv1") modparam("topos", "storage", "redis") modparam("topos", "contact_mode", 1) modparam("topos", "rr_update", 1) RR module is configured as follows: modparam("rr", "enable_full_lr", 1) modparam("rr", "append_fromtag", 1) configured the below event_route: event_route[topos:msg-outgoing] { xlog("L_INFO","[topos:msg-outgoing]"); if(is_request() and $sndto(ip)=="SCSCF_PRIVATE_IP") { xlog("L_INFO","[topos:msg-outgoing] TOPOS \n"); drop; } } Thanks, Vinayak Makwana -- *Disclaimer* In addition to generic Disclaimer which you have agreed on our website, any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the originator and do not necessarily represent those of the Company or its sister concerns. Any liability (in negligence, contract or otherwise) arising from any third party taking any action, or refraining from taking any action on the basis of any of the information contained in this email is hereby excluded. *Confidentiality* This communication (including any attachment/s) is intended only for the use of the addressee(s) and contains information that is PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. Unauthorized reading, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is prohibited. Please inform originator if you have received it in error. *Caution for viruses, malware etc.* This communication, including any attachments, may not be free of viruses, trojans, similar or new contaminants/malware, interceptions or interference, and may not be compatible with your systems. You shall carry out virus/malware scanning on your own before opening any attachment to this e-mail. The sender of this e-mail and Company including its sister concerns shall not be liable for any damage that may incur to you as a result of viruses, incompleteness of this message, a delay in receipt of this message or any other computer problems. [View Less]

1 1

Running Kamailio in kubernetes
by sagar agarwal 25 Mar '25

25 Mar '25

Hi team, I am looking for some guidance to run Kamailio as part of our Kubernetes cluster. I don't see any official or well maintained helm chart out there to install Kamailio on K8s. If there is a recommendation from your side on a helm chart please let me know. Also would be interesting to know if you foresee any issues with running Kamailio on k8s or do you feel its better to stick with ec2 based installations. Regards Sagar Agarwal

4 3

Problem with ipsec setting of Via for outgoing message
by Minello, Loredana 24 Mar '25

24 Mar '25

Hello, I'm using Kamailio ver. 5.8.4. I configured the ims_ipsec_pcscf with modparam("ims_ipsec_pcscf", "ipsec_max_connections", 1) and call ipsec_forward with flag = IPSEC_FORWARD_FLAGS where : # - IPSEC_SEND_FORCE_SOCKET 1 # - IPSEC_FORWARD_USEVIA 256 #!define IPSEC_FORWARD_FLAGS 257 For the UE REGISTRATION I have the following flow UE PCSCF_GM_IMS REGISTER (32133) ---------------… [View More]---> (5060) 100 Trying (32133) <------------------ (5060) 401 Unauthorized (32133) <------------------ (5060) REGISTER (TCP) (PORT_UC) ------------------> (PORT_PS) 100 Trying (TCP) (PORT_UC) <------------------ (PORT_PS) 200 OK (TCP) (PORT_UC) <------------------ (PORT_PS) ------------------------------------------------------------------ SUBSCRIBE (UDP) (PORT_UC) ------------------> (PORT_PS) 200 Subscription (UDP) (PORT_US) <------------------ (PORT_PC) NOTIFY (UDP) (PORT_US) <------------------ (PORT_PC) 200 OK (UDP) (PORT_UC) ------------------> (PORT_PC) NOTIFY (UDP) (PORT_US) <------------------ (PORT_PC) 200 OK (UDP) (PORT_UC) ------------------> (PORT_PC) NOTIFY (UDP) (PORT_US) <------------------ (PORT_PC) 200 OK (UDP) (PORT_UC) ------------------> (PORT_PC) The SUBSCRIBE behavior is correct : PCSCF receives message on PORT_PS and sends on PORT_PC The NOTIFY behavior is wrong: PCSCF send from PORT_PC (correct), but UE respond towards PORT_PC, defined in the Via of the NOTIFY. I know I can use the set_advertised_port() function, and in this case can work, but the function is taking a constant as a parameter, not a variable. This is causing a problem when ipsec_max_connections > 1. In that case it won't be easy to pass the correct port. I was wondering if the ipsec module should properly set the VIA port to the correct PORT_PS, rather than leaving the setting of the correct port by the kamailio.cfg. Do you have any hints on that? Thanks [View Less]

1 0

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 March 2025