sr-users

sr-users@lists.kamailio.org

29 participants
37538 discussions

sipwise/sems for video
by Amar Tinawi 08 Aug '18

08 Aug '18

Hello i don't know if the question is related to this list, but as far as i'm using Kamailio i though i should ask here i'm using Kamailio and sems as media server, the audio is passing through fine but when it comes to Video, SEMS block it, in the outgoing SDP m=video is removed with it's codec my question is does sems support Video ? or is there any tuning for sems to allow Video media streams ? Cheers Amar

2 3

Regarding OpenSource Meetup in India
by surendra tiwari 08 Aug '18

08 Aug '18

Hello Guys, We are having a Meetup for Telecommunication Geeks. We are talking around Opensource Technology for building telecommunication solution. Here's the agenda for our first meetup. We do have one slot open. Please contact us or drop a comment if you want to present. Hoping that everyone would have fun geeking out on telecom and voip tech. 10:00 - 10:25 - How VOIP is changing the Communication landscape - Rajat Dwivedi 10:30 - 10:55 - Generic VoIP Solutions on the cloud - Chandra Prakash Singh 10:55 - 11:10 - Break 11:10 - 11:35 - Developing VoIP solutions using Open Source Tech - Surendra Tiwari 11:40 - 12:05 - WebRTC: Telephony in your browser - Altanai Bisht 12:05 - 12:30 - Open Slot (looking for speakers) 12:30 - 1:30 - Lunch + Networking 13:30 - 14:15 - Birds of a Feather Session (BoF) Please RSVP. With Regards, Surendra Tiwari VoIP Application Developer, Plivo Comm +91-9967609476

3 2

MSILO messages to users behind NAT
by Michalis Michael 07 Aug '18

07 Aug '18

I am using Kamailio (5.0.1) and MSILO module for offline messages but I have a problem with users behind NAT. According to module overview, MSILO is forwarding the offline messages to contact address provided in REGISTER request. Is there any way to overcome this and send the messages to the external client IP? Thanks, Michalis Michael

1 0

IRC Channel
by Enrico Bandiera 07 Aug '18

07 Aug '18

Hi, currenty (the last few days) there has been a spam attack on freenode, #Kamailio is currently full of spam messages, I was wondering if who has operator rights could set the channel to +r (only registered users can send messages) as suggested by freeenode admins The channel usually has only few messages and with all this spam it becomes impossible at all to use it. Greetings, Enrico.

4 4

Kamctl Stats Update
by Noah Mehl 07 Aug '18

07 Aug '18

Hey all, I was wondering if the kamctl stats output could be updated to provide a bit more parseable JSON? For instance: # kamctl stats shmem | jq . { "jsonrpc": "2.0", "result": [ "shmem:fragments = 18", "shmem:free_size = 467187808", "shmem:max_used_size = 69694104", "shmem:real_used_size = 69683104", "shmem:total_size = 536870912", "shmem:used_size = 41048984" ], "id": 4300 } I would hope would be more like this: { "jsonrpc":"2.0", "result":[ { "shmem":[ { "fragments":18, "free_size":467187808, "max_used_size":69694104, "real_used_size":69683104, "total_size":536870912, "used_size":41048984 } ] } ], "id":4300 } I apologize in advanced because I don’t have the skillset to contribute such a feature. Thanks! ~Noah

5 8

"kamdbctl create" failing with MySQL 8
by Wilkins, Steve 05 Aug '18

05 Aug '18

Hello All, There appears to be issues with running "kamdbctl create" when using MySQL 8. When this is ran there are syntax SQL errors. One such error is when doing grants using "IDENTIFIED BY 'password'"; This throws a sequel error for version 8 of MySQL. Thank you,

2 1

DMQ problems
by Aleksandar Sosic 05 Aug '18

05 Aug '18

Hi, I've set up a dmq server for other kamailio nodes with this parameters: ``` modparam("dmq", "server_address","sip:10.0.0.101:5060") modparam("dmq", "notification_address", "sip:127.0.0.1:5060") modparam("dmq", "multi_notify", 1) modparam("dmq", "num_workers", 4) modparam("dmq", "ping_interval", 15) ``` On the kamailio nodes the config is the following: ``` modparam("dmq", "server_address", "sip:10.0.0.x:5060") modparam("dmq", "notification_address", "sip:10.0.0.101:5060") modparam("dmq", "multi_notify", 1) modparam("dmq", "num_workers", 4) modparam("dmq", "ping_interval", 15) ``` On the kamailio dmq server I've got this in the logs: ``` 25(41) ERROR: dmq [notification_peer.c:596]: notification_resp_callback_f(): deleting server sip:127.0.0.1:5060 because of failed request 25(41) ERROR: dmq [notification_peer.c:599]: notification_resp_callback_f(): not deleting notification_peer ``` On the kamailio nodes the same thing with the ip of the dmq server: ``` 25(112) ERROR: dmq [notification_peer.c:596]: notification_resp_callback_f(): deleting server sip:10.0.0.101:5060 because of failed request 25(112) ERROR: dmq [notification_peer.c:599]: notification_resp_callback_f(): not deleting notification_peer ``` The request route on the dmq server is simple as this: ``` request_route { if(is_method("KDMQ")){ dmq_handle_message(); } }#end request_route ``` I've tried with some xlog-s inside the if(is_method("KDMQ")) but they don't show up so the dmq_handle_message() is not even executed. I've also tried to bind the dmq server to a different port but with no success on making it work. The dmq.list_nodes shows only the dmq server IP and the current node IP, the IPs of other nodes are not shown: ``` root@proxy-94b6ccf46-t8fx2:/# kamcmd dmq.list_nodes { host: 10.0.0.101 port: 5060 resolved_ip: 10.0.0.101 status: active last_notification: 0 local: 0 } { host: 10.0.0.45 port: 5060 resolved_ip: 10.0.0.45 status: active last_notification: 0 local: 1 } ``` And it's the same on all other kamailio nodes: dmq server ip and local ip. The kamailio version on all the nodes is: 5.2.0~dev6+0~20180616010152.1138+xenial Thanks, -- Aleksandar Sosic mail: alex.sosic(a)evosip.cloud

4 20

Security announcement related to Kamailio
by Henning Westerholt 04 Aug '18

04 Aug '18

Hello, I want to highlight that the last stable versions (for the two maintained series: 5.0 and 5.1) include fixes for an security issues that can crash a running instance of Kamailio, therefore it is strongly recommended to upgrade. Details: There exists a security vulnerability in the Kamailio SIP server related to "To" header processing. A specially crafted SIP message with double "To" header and an empty "To" tag causes a segmentation fault and crashes Kamailio. The reason is missing input validation in the "build_res_buf_from_sip_req" core function. If an attacker sends many of this messages this would lead to a Denial of Service of the attacked infrastructure. This is especially critical as no authentication for the remote source is needed. You find all the details including a proof of concept code in the published security announcement in my blog: https://skalatan.de/blog/advisory-hw-2018-05 A CVE report for this issue is going to be created as well in the near future. The issues were found some months ago and were fixed quickly. The code related to the reported issues is rather old and there are no known incidents of exploiting these issues so far. However, once the CVE report becomes public, there could be a higher risk of exploitation. Please address any detailed technical questions related to this to the developer list at sr-dev(a)lists.kamailio.org . In case of confidential remarks related to this or other security issues, please address them to the Kamailio Management. Best regards, Henning Westerholt -- Henning Westerholt https://skalatan.de/blog/

1 1

Nathelper not obeying Advertised IP
by John Martirosian 03 Aug '18

03 Aug '18

Hello, The nathelper module does not obey the advertise IP. Is there any work around for this? When kamailio is running behind a NAT with advertised IP set the nathelper module doesn't use that IP when sending SIP OPTIONS keepalives. Here is a picture of the packet coming from Kamailio. https://i.imgur.com/9vcpOoo.png Thanks,

1 0

Final reply code is wrong in case of 302 and 486 busy
by Marco Capetta 03 Aug '18

03 Aug '18

Hello, we have a problem of final reply code in case of 302 and then 486 busy. This is our scenario: A, B and C are subscribers. A ----------> Kamailio ----------> B Kamailio <---302---- B Kamailio -----------------------> C Kamailio <---486----------------- C A <---302---- Kamailio Expected behavior: Kamailio should reply to A with 486, as C was busy, and not 302. We have kamailio v5.1.4 In the call to B we set both failure and branch_failure: t_on_failure("failure_route"); t_on_branch_failure("failure_redirect"); in order to handle the 302 redirect per branch with: event_route[tm:branch-failure:failure_redirect] { if($T_reply_code == 301 || $T_reply_code == 302) { do redirect ... } } and the final failure with: failure_route[FAILURE_ROUTE_LOCAL] { do something ... } Since we have 'modparam("tm", "failure_reply_mode", 3)' my expectation is to get the winning reply from the branch of last step. Is there any configuration I'm missing? Since we manage the redirect with a branch-failure, is the winning reply calculated in a different way? Thanks Marco

2 1

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