sr-users

sr-users@lists.kamailio.org

48 participants
37555 discussions

stir/shaken integration with clearip redirect method
by JR Richardson 19 May '25

19 May '25

Hey Folks, I'm integrating STIR/SHAKEN using kamailio, but not using self hosted certs with the secsipid module, just using a redirect from clearip on the SIP Calls. I've got the basic connection to clearip using t_relay_to_tcp for testing, but I'm struggling with the checks and timeouts. I have call progress past the initial request where I need to wait for a response. Should I put the clearip invite in its own route block use return? Has anyone successfully integrated the redirect method with kamailio to clearip and can give me some example route checks in the kamailio configs? Thanks. JR

4 6

Server closing TLS connection
by Ihor Olkhovskyi 16 May '25

16 May '25

Hello, I'm having a strange issue, when Kamailio(?) is closing TLS connection just in the middle of session. Usually I see a sort of timeout ~ 600 secs. But it does not ring a bell for me. With strace I've found, that it's actually not Kamailio, but underlying SSL library is doing this, according to line I've got from strace [2025-05-16 10:00:30] PID=1337952 FD=0 SYSCALL=close -> [No socket info] Raw: sendto(3, "<183>May 16 10:00:30 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[1337952]: DEBUG: tls [tls_server.c:712]: tls_h_tcpconn_close_f(): Closing SSL connection 0x7f01a1ab1870\n", 150, MSG_NOSIGNAL, NULL, 0) = 150 As I don't see any explicit calls of tls_h_tcpconn_close_f in the source code, I assume it's a callback from the external OpenSSL(?) module. What would be the best way to debug why OpenSSL(?) is terminating connection, cause on Wireshark I just do see usual TCP connection with keepalives [image: image.png] kamailio -v version: kamailio 5.8.3 (x86_64/linux) 6f8a04 flags: USE_TCP, USE_TLS, USE_SCTP, TLS_HOOKS, USE_RAW_SOCKS, DISABLE_NAGLE, USE_MCAST, DNS_IP_HACK, SHM_MMAP, PKG_MALLOC, MEM_JOIN_FREE, 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_SEND_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. openssl --version OpenSSL 3.2.2 4 Jun 2024 (Library: OpenSSL 3.2.2 4 Jun 2024) enable_tls=yes enable_sctp=no tls_threads_mode=2 tcp_accept_no_cl=yes tcp_max_connections=63536 tls_max_connections=63536 tcp_accept_aliases=no tcp_async=yes tcp_connect_timeout=30 tcp_conn_wq_max=63536 tcp_crlf_ping=yes tcp_delayed_ack=yes tcp_fd_cache=yes tcp_keepalive=yes tcp_keepcnt=5 tcp_keepidle=30 tcp_keepintvl=10 tcp_linger2=30 tcp_script_mode=1 tcp_rd_buf_size=80000 tcp_send_timeout=10 tcp_wq_blk_size=2100 tcp_wq_max=10485760 open_files_limit=63536 Many thanks in advance! -- Best regards, Ihor (Igor)

1 1

extract_candidate() errors on 6.0.0
by Arsenijs Kabihno 14 May '25

14 May '25

Hello, I am getting the following errors on kamailio 6.0.0: May 14 07:10:20 hostname.xxxxxx.net docker[20678]: 53(59) ERROR: {2 24186 INVITE 7c127e81-45a8-41bb-ab64-7b0e7223f7ff} <core> [core/parser/sdp/sdp_helpr_funcs.c:336]: extract_candidate(): no component in `a=candidate' May 14 07:10:20 hostname.xxxxxx.net docker[20678]: 53(59) ERROR: {2 24186 INVITE 7c127e81-45a8-41bb-ab64-7b0e7223f7ff} <core> [core/parser/sdp/sdp_helpr_funcs.c:336]: extract_candidate(): no component in `a=candidate' May 14 07:10:20 ap07stvp.dyninno.net docker[20678]: 53(59) ERROR: {2 24186 INVITE 7c127e81-45a8-41bb-ab64-7b0e7223f7ff} <core> [core/parser/sdp/sdp_helpr_funcs.c:336]: extract_candidate(): no component in `a=candidate' Candidates in SDP looks valid per RFC: a=candidate:vnyxKH3f79Lw0zSj 1 UDP 2130706431 1x.xxx.xxx.xxx 26010 typ host a=candidate:vnyxKH3f79Lw0zSj 2 UDP 2130706430 1x.xxx.xxx.xxx 26011 typ host a=remote-candidates:1 9x.xx.xxx.xxx 56628 I am using the 6.0.0-alpine version (https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio-ci/pkgs/container/kamailio-ci/34563256…) version: kamailio 6.0.0 (x86_64/linux) flags: USE_TCP, USE_TLS, USE_SCTP, TLS_HOOKS, USE_RAW_SOCKS, DISABLE_NAGLE, USE_MCAST, DNS_IP_HACK, SHM_MMAP, PKG_MALLOC, MEM_JOIN_FREE, 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_SEND_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: unknown compiled on 12:27:58 Jan 29 2025 with gcc 14.2.0 It appears that it could have been fixed in 6.0.1 (https://www.kamailio.org/pub/kamailio/6.0.1/ChangeLog commit a5ac9e04b91971da44256373904450501f9a4493) but I don't see 6.0.1-alpine image in https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio-ci/pkgs/container/kamailio-ci. Please advise, is there any plans to publish it? Kind regards, [logo] Arsenijs Kabihno | VoIP SIA "Dynatech", DYNATECH, Jeruzalemes St. 1, Riga, LV-1010, Latvia<https://www.google.com/maps/place/Jeruzalemes+St.+1,+Riga,+LV-1010,+Latvia> a.kabihno(a)dynatech.lv<mailto:a.kabihno@dynatech.lv> | https://dynatech.lv/<https://https://dynatech.lv/> Stay connected: [logo]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/dynatech-latvia/> Confidentiality Notice: This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the named recipient(s). If you are not the addressee you may not copy, distribute or perform any other activities with this information. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify us by e-mail immediately. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses.

2 1

How to remove Reason HF from branched CANCEL?
by Benoit Panizzon 13 May '25

13 May '25

Hi Gang I try to remove the Reason Header from a CANCEL message. I use parallel branching on the registrar. The route below is called very soon in request_route. The cancel matches as I get the log entry just before calling remove_hf("Reason") But the Reason HF is still present when the CANCEL is forked to the registered CPE. The INVITE is routed through a branch_route after forking where headers can be altered per branch. But I don't see the CANCEL in the branch route. Is there a way to alter header in a branched cancel message? # CANCEL processing if (is_method("CANCEL")) { if (t_check_trans()) { route(FILTER_CANCEL); route(RELAY); } exit; } route[FILTER_CANCEL] { # Buggy iPhones send wrong cancel cause code 200. if (is_present_hf("Reason")) { $var(cause) = $(hdr(Reason){param.value,cause}); $var(text) = $(hdr(Reason){param.value,text}); if (($var(cause) == 200) && ($var(text) == "Call Rejected By User")) { if ($avp(debug) > 0) { xlog("L_INFO", "$cfg(route): Remove wrong iPhone Cancel Reason HF\n"); } remove_hf("Reason"); } } } 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 ______________________________________________________

2 2

xhttp module generates an error sip parsing error log
by 崔天浩 13 May '25

13 May '25

### Description I see that when the xhttp module is enabled, kamailio will forge the Via header to process the HTTP request, but the parse sip error will be generated in the log ``` 104(113) ERROR: <core> [core/parser/parse_uri.c:1417]: _parse_ruri(): bad uri </metrics> 104(113) ERROR: <core> [core/parser/parse_uri.c:1455]: parse_orig_ruri(): parse orig ruri failed 104(113) ERROR: pv [pv_core.c:355]: pv_get_ouri_attr(): failed to parse the R-URI ``` ### Troubleshooting #### Debugging Data Set up a Kamailio server with the xhttp module enabled. ``` loadmodule "xhttp.so" event_route[xhttp:request] { $var(xhttp_prom_root) = $(hu{s.substr,0,8}); if ($var(xhttp_prom_root) == "/metrics") { xlogl("L_INFO", " [$utimef(20%y-%d-%m %H:%M:%S)] [$(hdr(Call-ID))]: [bizCall=$xavu(bizCallId)] [bot=$xavu(bizBotId)] Called metrics\n"); prom_dispatch(); } } ``` #### Log Messages ``` 104(113) ERROR: <core> [core/parser/parse_uri.c:1417]: _parse_ruri(): bad uri </metrics> 104(113) ERROR: <core> [core/parser/parse_uri.c:1455]: parse_orig_ruri(): parse orig ruri failed 104(113) ERROR: pv [pv_core.c:355]: pv_get_ouri_attr(): failed to parse the R-URI ``` ### Additional Information ``` root@kamailio-60-bot-67d564c54c-xj97x:/# kamailio -V version: kamailio 6.0.1 (x86_64/linux) flags: USE_TCP, USE_TLS, USE_SCTP, TLS_HOOKS, USE_RAW_SOCKS, DISABLE_NAGLE, USE_MCAST, DNS_IP_HACK, SHM_MMAP, PKG_MALLOC, MEM_JOIN_FREE, 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_SEND_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: unknown compiled with gcc 8.3.0 ``` * **Operating System**: ``` root@kamailio-60-bot-67d564c54c-xj97x:/# uname -a Linux kamailio-60-bot-67d564c54c-xj97x 5.4.119-19.0009.28 #1 SMP Thu May 18 10:37:10 CST 2023 x86_64 GNU/Linux ```

1 0

Is there an mistake in the dialog documentation?
by 13715209697＠139.com 12 May '25

12 May '25

Hi, team https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/blob/master/src/modules/dialog/doc/dia… `dlg.list_match furi eq sip:alice@test.com 2` ? `dlg.list_match furi eq sip:alice@test.com` ?

2 2

Analysis regarding performance regressions OpenSSL 3.0/3.x
by Henning Westerholt 11 May '25

11 May '25

Hello, If somebody is using Kamailio in a larger environment with TLS, this new technical analysis and performance report from haproxy could be interesting: https://www.haproxy.com/blog/state-of-ssl-stacks The bottom-line - OpenSSL 3.0 will show serious performance regressions for larger TLS services with higher performance requirements. OpenSSL 3.1 and newer versions are a bit better, but still much slower in key operations. You should consider using the tls_wolfssl module or stay on OpenSSL 1.1.1. For the medium- to long-term we probably should observe how other OpenSSL libraries are developing and act accordingly for the tls modules. The haproxy project recommends besides using wolfssl also the aws-lc library. The situation regarding OpenSSL 3.x seems to be not easily fixable, as these regressions are caused from internal design decisions. Cheers, Henning -- Henning Westerholt - https://skalatan.de/blog/ Kamailio services - https://gilawa.com<https://gilawa.com/>

1 0

The index indicates that the sipjson module is not present in 6.0.x.
by 13715209697＠139.com 10 May '25

10 May '25

https://www.kamailio.org/docs/modules/6.0.x/modules/

3 2

SIPP UAS scenario
by Sergio Charrua 09 May '25

09 May '25

Hi all! my DEV/LAB environment is comprised of 3 nodes: - SIP 1 with Asterisk and SIPP installed (IP 10.20.0.5) - SIP 2 with Kamailio 5.8 (IP 10.20.0.4) - SIP 3 with Asterisk and SIPP installed (IP 10.20.0.6) Kamailio is set as a stateful SIP Proxy and seems to be working fine (the configuration is pretty standard, using dispatcher to dispatch to destination, even though there is only 1 destination endpoint -» SIP 3) When establishing a call from SIP 1 using Asterisk, the termination is correctly done on SIP 3, also running Asterisk. Hanging up call on SIP 3 will send the correct BYE command to SIP 1 (of course, Kamailio is always between the dialogs) When establishing a call from SIP 1 using SIPP and UAC scenario, the termination is correctly done on SIP 3 also running SIPP with a UAS scenario. However, hanging up the call on SIP 3 (SIPP scenario has a Pause of 2 seconds then sends a BYE message), the BYE command is not forwarded by Kamailio and SIPP keep sending BYE commands. This is an example of the ACK and BYE command being sent from SIP 3: > ACK sip:10.20.0.6:5060;transport=UDP SIP/2.0 > Via: SIP/2.0/UDP > 10.20.0.4;branch=z9hG4bK680a.47d763c3f0732dbe0fdb64ccbeb3454a.0 > Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 10.20.0.5:5060 > ;received=10.20.0.5;branch=z9hG4bK01175d44;rport=5060 > Max-Forwards: 69 > From: "Anonymous" <sip:anonymous@anonymous.invalid>;tag=as023237be > To: <sip:1000@10.20.0.4>;tag=20 > Contact: <sip:anonymous@10.20.0.5:5060> > Call-ID: 568f1bbe197039983fc89cc6403b927b@10.20.0.5:5060 > CSeq: 102 ACK > User-Agent: Asterisk PBX 18.17.1 > Content-Length: 0 and then: > BYE sip:anonymous@10.20.0.5:5060 SIP/2.0 > Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 10.20.0.6:5060 > Route: <sip:10.20.0.4;lr=on;ftage=46906> > Max-Forwards: 70 > From: sipp <sip:sipp@10.20.0.6:5060>;tag=46906SIPpTag0120 > To: : "Anonymous" <sip:anonymous@anonymous.invalid>;tag=as023237be > Call-ID: 568f1bbe197039983fc89cc6403b927b@10.20.0.5:5060 > Cseq: 2 BYE > Contact: sip:sipp@10.20.0.6:5060 > Content-Length: 0 > Subject: Sending BYE I'm pretty sure that the issue is within the SIPP Scenario(s), and my guess goes to the UAS scenario on SIP 3 that has some issue with the BYE command, but I can't figure why the message is wrong! The goal is to have a Testing environment where we can simulate different call situations. SIPP is a wonderful tool but such a PITA !! Probably i am missing some detail somewhere.... Has anyone done such a testing environment? Can anyone share a SIPP UAS scenario where the BYE command is sent from the UAS (send BYE instead of recv BYE) ? SIPP is launched on SIP 1 with: sipp -sf uac.xml -i 10.20.0.5 -p 5060 10.20.0.4 -r 1 -m 1 SIPP is launched on SIP 3 with: sipp -aa -sf uas5.xml -i 10.20.0.6 -p 5060 Thanks in advance. Atenciosamente / Kind Regards / Cordialement / Un saludo, *Sérgio Charrua*

2 2

Kamailio Crash
by Ben Kaufman 09 May '25

09 May '25

Greetings, all, I have a redirect server doing CNAM lookup (via http_async) and STIR/SHAKEN validation with secsipidx that is crashing every few hours. Kamailio 6.0.1 running in a Debian 12 container on an Amazon Linux 2023 host with ARM CPU. root@0689d4fe5fed:/# kamailio -v version: kamailio 6.0.1 (aarch64/linux) fce50d flags: USE_TCP, USE_TLS, USE_SCTP, TLS_HOOKS, USE_RAW_SOCKS, DISABLE_NAGLE, USE_MCAST, DNS_IP_HACK, SHM_MMAP, PKG_MALLOC, MEM_JOIN_FREE, Q_MALLOC, F_MALLOC, TLSF_MALLOC, DBG_SR_MEMORY, USE_FUTEX, FAST_LOCK-ADAPTIVE_WAIT-NOSMP, 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_SEND_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: fce50d compiled on 15:50:40 Apr 1 2025 with gcc 12.2.0 Back trace is here, so I think it's a secsipid related problem? Slightly sanitized this output (Removed SIP message specifics in step #42). What should be my next course of action? #0 __pthread_kill_implementation (threadid=281473196830752, signo=signo@entry=6, no_tid=no_tid@entry=0) at ./nptl/pthread_kill.c:44 #1 0x0000ffff95c90ab4 in __pthread_kill_internal (signo=6, threadid=<optimized out>) at ./nptl/pthread_kill.c:78 #2 0x0000ffff95c4a72c in __GI_raise (sig=sig@entry=6) at ../sysdeps/posix/raise.c:26 #3 0x0000ffff95c3747c in __GI_abort () at ./stdlib/abort.c:79 #4 0x0000ffff95c84aac in __libc_message (action=action@entry=do_abort, fmt=fmt@entry=0xffff95d66d28 "%s\n") at ../sysdeps/posix/libc_fatal.c:156 #5 0x0000ffff95c9aebc in malloc_printerr (str=str@entry=0xffff95d62098 "double free or corruption (!prev)") at ./malloc/malloc.c:5660 #6 0x0000ffff95c9cee8 in _int_free (av=0xffff95db0af0 <main_arena>, p=p@entry=0xaaab05dd41b0, have_lock=<optimized out>, have_lock@entry=0) at ./malloc/malloc.c:4587 #7 0x0000ffff95c9f77c in __GI___libc_free (mem=<optimized out>) at ./malloc/malloc.c:3385 #8 0x0000ffff90eb0a0c in w_secsipid_get_url (msg=0xffff92f53030, purl=0xffff92e84e10 "\220M\350\222\377\377", povar=0xffff92e84fd0 "\004") at secsipid_mod.c:961 #9 0x0000aaaaea4fd710 in do_action (h=0xffffff40a610, a=0xffff92e8e9b0, msg=0xffff92f53030) at core/action.c:1133 #10 0x0000aaaaea50d3c4 in run_actions (h=0xffffff40a610, a=0xffff92e8e9b0, msg=0xffff92f53030) at core/action.c:1620 #11 0x0000aaaaea50db44 in run_actions_safe (h=0xffffff40bc50, a=0xffff92e8e9b0, msg=0xffff92f53030) at core/action.c:1683 #12 0x0000aaaaea71a7e0 in rval_get_long (h=0xffffff40bc50, msg=0xffff92f53030, i=0xffffff40ab48, rv=0xffff92e8fc78, cache=0x0) at core/rvalue.c:973 #13 0x0000aaaaea7200f0 in rval_expr_eval_long (h=0xffffff40bc50, msg=0xffff92f53030, res=0xffffff40ab48, rve=0xffff92e8fc70) at core/rvalue.c:1852 #14 0x0000aaaaea720118 in rval_expr_eval_long (h=0xffffff40bc50, msg=0xffff92f53030, res=0xffffff40b080, rve=0xffff92e903b0) at core/rvalue.c:1862 #15 0x0000aaaaea4fd090 in do_action (h=0xffffff40bc50, a=0xffff92e91810, msg=0xffff92f53030) at core/action.c:1099 #16 0x0000aaaaea50d3c4 in run_actions (h=0xffffff40bc50, a=0xffff92e8d690, msg=0xffff92f53030) at core/action.c:1620 #17 0x0000aaaaea4f9400 in do_action (h=0xffffff40bc50, a=0xffff92e82210, msg=0xffff92f53030) at core/action.c:711 #18 0x0000aaaaea50d3c4 in run_actions (h=0xffffff40bc50, a=0xffff92e82210, msg=0xffff92f53030) at core/action.c:1620 #19 0x0000aaaaea50db44 in run_actions_safe (h=0xffffff40daf0, a=0xffff92e82210, msg=0xffff92f53030) at core/action.c:1683 #20 0x0000aaaaea71a7e0 in rval_get_long (h=0xffffff40daf0, msg=0xffff92f53030, i=0xffffff40c188, rv=0xffff92e82378, cache=0x0) at core/rvalue.c:973 #21 0x0000aaaaea7200f0 in rval_expr_eval_long (h=0xffffff40daf0, msg=0xffff92f53030, res=0xffffff40c188, rve=0xffff92e82370) at core/rvalue.c:1852 #22 0x0000aaaaea720118 in rval_expr_eval_long (h=0xffffff40daf0, msg=0xffff92f53030, res=0xffffff40c6c0, rve=0xffff92e82ab0) at core/rvalue.c:1862 #23 0x0000aaaaea4fd090 in do_action (h=0xffffff40daf0, a=0xffff92e83a90, msg=0xffff92f53030) at core/action.c:1099 #24 0x0000aaaaea50d3c4 in run_actions (h=0xffffff40daf0, a=0xffff92e83a90, msg=0xffff92f53030) at core/action.c:1620 #25 0x0000aaaaea4fd5e8 in do_action (h=0xffffff40daf0, a=0xffff92e83bf0, msg=0xffff92f53030) at core/action.c:1119 #26 0x0000aaaaea50d3c4 in run_actions (h=0xffffff40daf0, a=0xffff92e79450, msg=0xffff92f53030) at core/action.c:1620 #27 0x0000aaaaea4f9400 in do_action (h=0xffffff40daf0, a=0xffff92e75710, msg=0xffff92f53030) at core/action.c:711 #28 0x0000aaaaea50d3c4 in run_actions (h=0xffffff40daf0, a=0xffff92e75710, msg=0xffff92f53030) at core/action.c:1620 #29 0x0000aaaaea50db44 in run_actions_safe (h=0xffffff4101f8, a=0xffff92e75710, msg=0xffff92f53030) at core/action.c:1683 #30 0x0000aaaaea71a7e0 in rval_get_long (h=0xffffff4101f8, msg=0xffff92f53030, i=0xffffff40e028, rv=0xffff92e75878, cache=0x0) at core/rvalue.c:973 #31 0x0000aaaaea7200f0 in rval_expr_eval_long (h=0xffffff4101f8, msg=0xffff92f53030, res=0xffffff40e028, rve=0xffff92e75870) at core/rvalue.c:1852 #32 0x0000aaaaea720118 in rval_expr_eval_long (h=0xffffff4101f8, msg=0xffff92f53030, res=0xffffff40e560, rve=0xffff92e75fb0) at core/rvalue.c:1862 #33 0x0000aaaaea4fd090 in do_action (h=0xffffff4101f8, a=0xffff92e76e10, msg=0xffff92f53030) at core/action.c:1099 #34 0x0000aaaaea50d3c4 in run_actions (h=0xffffff4101f8, a=0xffff92e74500, msg=0xffff92f53030) at core/action.c:1620 #35 0x0000aaaaea5095fc in do_action (h=0xffffff4101f8, a=0xffff92e79110, msg=0xffff92f53030) at core/action.c:1401 #36 0x0000aaaaea50d3c4 in run_actions (h=0xffffff4101f8, a=0xffff92e71a40, msg=0xffff92f53030) at core/action.c:1620 #37 0x0000aaaaea4f9400 in do_action (h=0xffffff4101f8, a=0xffff92dd8520, msg=0xffff92f53030) at core/action.c:711 #38 0x0000aaaaea50d3c4 in run_actions (h=0xffffff4101f8, a=0xffff92dd7e30, msg=0xffff92f53030) at core/action.c:1620 #39 0x0000aaaaea4fd5a8 in do_action (h=0xffffff4101f8, a=0xffff92dd8680, msg=0xffff92f53030) at core/action.c:1115 #40 0x0000aaaaea50d3c4 in run_actions (h=0xffffff4101f8, a=0xffff92dce4c0, msg=0xffff92f53030) at core/action.c:1620 #41 0x0000aaaaea50dbf4 in run_top_route (a=0xffff92dce4c0, msg=0xffff92f53030, c=0x0) at core/action.c:1703 #42 0x0000aaaaea6bfff8 in receive_msg ( buf=0xaaaaeac284b8 <buf> "INVITE sip:2345678901@1.2.3.4 SIP/2.0\r\nRecord-Route: <sip:1.2.3.5;lr=on;ftag=gK045643d5>\r\nRecord-Route: <sip:1.2.3.6;lr=on;ftag=gK045643d5>\r\nVia: SIP/2.0/UDP 1.2.3.5:5060;branch"..., len=2492, rcv_info=0xffffff410a10) at core/receive.c:520 #43 0x0000aaaaea85abe0 in udp_rcv_loop () at core/udp_server.c:770 #44 0x0000aaaaea4e26a8 in main_loop () at main.c:1895 #45 0x0000aaaaea4f1e88 in main (argc=16, argv=0xffffff411178) at main.c:3406 Kaufman Senior Voice Engineer E: bkaufman(a)bcmone.com SIP.US Client Support: 800.566.9810 | SIPTRUNK Client Support: 800.250.6510 | Flowroute Client Support: 855.356.9768 [img]<https://www.sip.us> [img]<https://www.siptrunk.com> [img]<https://www.flowroute.com> NOTE: This e-mail and any attachments are from BCM One, Inc. and are intended solely for the use and review of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. If you believe you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately, delete the e-mail (and any attachments) from your computer and do not copy or disclose it to anyone else.

2 3

← Newer
1
...
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
...
3756
Older →

Jump to page:

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