sr-users

sr-users@lists.kamailio.org

37 participants
37510 discussions

Does Kamailio supports Voice and Video call support for 5G Core
by Pooja Yadav 09 Dec '22

09 Dec '22

Hi Kamailio community, We just want to check does Kamailio IMS supports the functionality of Voice and Video call support (Vo5G) with 5G core? If yes, please share the document reference. Else, please guide us when it will be available. Any plans in upcoming release to support HTTP2 based SBI interface between P- CSCF and PCF. Your inputs will be highly appreciated. Thanks & Regards, Pooja Yadav

4 4

Next online devel meeting - Thu, Dec 8, 2022, 15:00UTC
by Daniel-Constantin Mierla 08 Dec '22

08 Dec '22

Hello, to summarize what happened at the devel meeting in Dusseldorf a few weeks ago and plan the next steps for the project, we are planning an online development meeting on Thu, Dec 8, 2022, 15:00UTC. As usual, one of the targets is to sketch the roadmap to next major release so the developers and community members can syncronize and plan what should be done till Kamailio v5.7 (or 6.0) will be out as well as discuss about current state of the project, look for new ideas to improve collaboration within the community, a.s.o. The meeting will be done on a matrix chat room. More details are in the wiki page of the event, available at: * https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio-wiki/blob/main/docs/devel/irc-meetings… Feel free to add there topics that you want to be discussed. The proposed date is Thursday, December 08, 2022, at 15:00UTC (15:00 London/Dublin, 16:00 most of West Europe, 10:00 New York), but other dates can be proposed if they suit for more participants. Cheers, Daniel -- Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- www.asipto.com www.twitter.com/miconda -- www.linkedin.com/in/miconda _______________________________________________ Kamailio (SER) - Development Mailing List sr-dev(a)lists.kamailio.org https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev

1 3

Outgoing SIP/TLS connection error (msg_send_buffer(): tcp_send failed)
by Denys Pozniak 08 Dec '22

08 Dec '22

Hello! We use trunk with Twilio through a SIP/TLS. They establish incoming calls from random ports, like: (Twilio)3.3.3.3:54321 --> (Kamailio)2.2.2.2:5061 In case of sending in-dialog requests to them, Kamailio should establish an outgoing connection to the dst port 5061 (as per Route), like: (Kamailio)2.2.2.2 --> (Twilio)3.3.3.3:5061 But as per tcpdump traces and logs, Kamailio does not even try to establish an outgoing connection to Twilio. There should be no problems with routes and the network on that server, as regular telnet to Twilio shows that 5061 is open. What could be the reason and how to debug? *Script:* onsend_route { xlog("L_ERR","[$cfg(route)]*RELAY ONSEND* $rm / $du / $fs / $fsn / [$ci]\n"); } *Syslog:* DEBUG <core> [core/resolve.c:1259]: srv_sip_resolvehost(): 3.3.3.3:5061 proto=3 DEBUG <core> [core/resolve.c:1371]: srv_sip_resolvehost(): returning 0x55acd63a63c0 (3.3.3.3:5061 proto=3) ERROR <script>: [DEFAULT_SEND]*RELAY ONSEND* REFER / sip:3.3.3.3:5061;transport=tls / tls:10.1.1.1:5061 / sip_wan_tls / [123] DEBUG tm [../../core/forward.h:277]: msg_send_buffer(): sending to: 3.3.3.3:5061, force_socket=4, send_sock=0x7f090049b8e8 DEBUG tm [../../core/forward.h:292]: msg_send_buffer(): tcp_send failed DEBUG tm [t_fwd.c:1568]: t_send_branch(): send to 3.3.3.3:5061 (3) failed WARNING: tm [t_fwd.c:1588]: t_send_branch(): sending request on branch 0 failed DEBUG tm [t_funcs.c:335]: t_relay_to(): t_forward_nonack returned error -1 (-477) DEBUG tm [t_funcs.c:353]: t_relay_to(): -477 error reply generation delayed DEBUG sl [sl_funcs.c:558]: sl_run_callbacks(): execute callback for event type 1 *Software:* - Kamailio is listening on (+udp, +tcp): tls: 10.1.1.1:5061 name sip_wan_tls advertise 2.2.2.2:5061 - OS is Debian 11.5 - # kamailio -v version: kamailio 5.6.2 (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, 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_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 10.2.1 - # dpkg -l | grep ssl ii libssl1.1:amd64 1.1.1n-0+deb11u3 amd64 Secure Sockets Layer toolkit - shared libraries ii openssl 1.1.1n-0+deb11u3 amd64 Secure Sockets Layer toolkit - cryptographic utility -- BR, Denys Pozniak

2 2

KAMCTL error
by Govind Swamy 08 Dec '22

08 Dec '22

[image: Error in KAMCTL.png] Hi am unable to create using kamctl

3 2

Re: [SR-Users] uac_req_send() multi-process synchronization problem
by Henning Westerholt 08 Dec '22

08 Dec '22

Hello, please keep the list in CC. Not sure what you mean by multi-process safe. The functions are safe to use in a kamailio multi-process context, relevant sections should be protected by internal locks etc.. Regarding query location manually by SQL client, its better to use the provided functions from the usrloc/registrar module instead. Cheers, Henning -- Henning Westerholt – https://skalatan.de/blog/ Kamailio services – https://gilawa.com<https://gilawa.com/> From: riffs(a)sina.cn <riffs(a)sina.cn> Sent: Thursday, December 1, 2022 10:47 AM To: Henning Westerholt <hw(a)gilawa.com> Subject: Re: Re: [SR-Users] uac_req_send() multi-process synchronization problem To confirm that. Are reg_fetch_contacts and unregister_ruid multi-process safe? ________________________________ riffs(a)sina.cn<mailto:riffs@sina.cn> From: riffs(a)sina.cn<mailto:riffs@sina.cn> Date: 2022-12-01 16:35 To: Henning Westerholt<mailto:hw@gilawa.com> Subject: Re: RE: [SR-Users] uac_req_send() multi-process synchronization problem Hello Thank you for your reply very much. My LOCATION is stored in the MYSQL database, and I also set the event_callback parameter of TCPOPS. modparam("tcpops", "event_callback", "ksr_tcpops_event") At the same time.I also deleted the contact inside the function function ksr_tcpops_event(evname) local tcpconnid = KSR.pv.get("$conid") or "0" if (evname == "tcp:reset" or evname == "tcp:closed") and (tonumber(tcpconnid) ~= 0) then local sql = string.format("select * from location where tcpconnid=%s", tcpconnid) local count, rows = execute_select(sql) if count > 0 then KSR.registrar.unregister_ruid("location", rows[1].contact, rows[1].ruid) end end return 1 end When I use use_req_send(), I use the following sql statement to query location string.format("select * from location where username='%s'", reciever) I think because the query sql is executed before the execution of unregister_ruid completes, the location of user A can still be queried. If unregister_ruid and reg_fetch_contacts are multi-process safe. I use reg_fetch_contacts query location to avoid this problem. Is that so? thanks very much ________________________________ riffs(a)sina.cn<mailto:riffs@sina.cn> From: Henning Westerholt<mailto:hw@gilawa.com> Date: 2022-11-30 18:18 To: Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List<mailto:sr-users@lists.kamailio.org> CC: 刘建峰<mailto:riffs@sina.cn> Subject: RE: [SR-Users] uac_req_send() multi-process synchronization problem Hello, not sure if I fully understand the problem. But regarding another user is registered with the same IP address as a previous user, there are several mitigations. To give two options: you could choose a really short re-registration time, you could use TCP and when you lose the connection you delete the contact. Cheers, Henning -- Henning Westerholt – https://skalatan.de/blog/ Kamailio services – https://gilawa.com<https://gilawa.com/> From: sr-users <sr-users-bounces(a)lists.kamailio.org<mailto:sr-users-bounces@lists.kamailio.org>> On Behalf Of ??? Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2022 2:57 AM To: sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org<mailto:sr-users@lists.kamailio.org> Subject: [SR-Users] uac_req_send() multi-process synchronization problem When I use uac_req_send() to send a MESSAGE to the client. Will the following occur? The result of the message sent to user A is that B has received it. From the logs, the address of user A in the location table is the same as the IP address and port of user B, and the information of user A in the location table is not deleted in time. I took the address of user A directly from the location table without using KSR.registrar.reg_fetch_contacts(). If I use KSR.registrar.reg_fetch_contacts() can this be avoided. This is a multi-process synchronization problem, after user A registers, the IP port information in the address is 172.16.22.222:12345, and then user A disconnects the link because of some abnormal conditions, but it is not normal to cancel the registration, the socket link has failed, but it has not had time to delete the location, at this time user B registers, whether will it get the same IP port information as user A 172.16.22.222 : 12345, if possible? User A's location still exists, Using KSR.registrar.reg_fetch_contacts() TO query user A's location, and then using uac_req_send() to send a message to user A, User B will receive the MESSAGE. Whether this problem occurs? 从 Windows 版邮件<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986>发送

2 2

Fosdem 2023 - CfP
by Daniel-Constantin Mierla 07 Dec '22

07 Dec '22

Hello, should anyone be interested to present or just go to FOSDEM 2023, note that it is going to take place in Brussels during February 4-5, 2023. With a increasing demand on topics to be covered, many more devrooms were accepted and Real Time Communication devroom has half a day available on the afternoon of February 5, 2023. The RTC Devroom call for presentations is open, more details at; - https://lists.fosdem.org/pipermail/fosdem/2022q4/003479.html Check also the other accepted devrooms, maybe one suits better for your work with open source nowadays and you can submit proposals to them: - https://fosdem.org/2023/news/2022-11-07-accepted-developer-rooms/ Cheers, Daniel -- Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- www.asipto.com www.twitter.com/miconda -- www.linkedin.com/in/miconda

1 0

Call drops after 1 minute
by Christian B Wiik 07 Dec '22

07 Dec '22

Greetings! I have a CentOS setup in AWS where all my calls are dropped after about a minute or so. I realize this typically is a NAT problem, but I can't see where my error is. Sound is fine both ways. Kamailio is set with WITH_NAT and I use rtpproxy like this: OPTIONS="-l 10.1.2.10 -s udp:127.0.0.1:7722 -d INFO:LOG_LOCAL5 -m 35010 -M 35110 -A 54.171.168.48" (10.1.2.10 is the local IP for CentOS) Tested with MicroSIP and Linphone and tried numerous configurations. It seems the receiving client is not able to verify the call has been set up, and disconnects. MicroSIP has the status "Connecting..." until it disconnects. All tips appreciated. Will post configuration and logs if needed. Kamailio version 5.6.2 from rpm and rtpproxy 2.1.0 compiled from source. -- Regards Christian B. Wiik

2 4

How to configure Kamailio to send only DNS A query
by Arun Kumar 07 Dec '22

07 Dec '22

Hello All, I have a setup where the DNS server is configured with only A record. When the Kamailio receives the request it performs a DNS SRV query for which it receives a response with "no such name". But later a DNS A query is sent which gets resolved and the request is forwarded. I would like to know that is there any configuration that can be done in Kamailio so that it will perform only DNS A query directly instead of SRV query? If so could you please help me know how to do it Thanks and Regards Arun

2 1

outbound Edge Proxy
by Giovanni Iamonte 06 Dec '22

06 Dec '22

Dear List In the last week I try to figure out how I can put in place a configuration that use an edge proxy and a register by using kamailio 5.6, but i am facing some issues. Scenario: We are using on ubuntu 20.04, HAproxy and Kamailio 5.6. We have configured a Kamailio register that, in the following case, perfectly works. ______ __ __________ TLS | | TLS | | Client ------------------ > | NAT |-----------> | Kamalio | in |_HAProxy | out in | Register | |_________| | | |________ _| Now we want to put a kamailio edge proxy before the kamailio Register, please take a look to the below picture ______ ______ __ _________ ___________ TLS | | TLS | | TCP | | Client ------------------ > | NAT |-----------> | Kamalio | -------------> | Kamailio | in |_HAProxy | out in | Edge | out in | Register | |_________| | Proxy | | | |_________| |___________| HAproxy -> sip-test.example.com Kamailio edge proxy -> 192.168.58.1 Kamailio Register -> 192.168.58.15 The kamailio Edge has been configured as indicated in the outbound module example. When a transaction such as REGISTER or SUBSCRIBE reach the "Kamailio Register" the Record-Route and Via headers are correct and it works. When the transaction such as MESSAGE or INVITE reach the "Kamailio Register" it does not work and below you can see the message and the error. Note that the Record-Route and Via headers are the same as the previous message REGISTER and SUBSCRIBE. Dec 6 11:57:09 qcast-webserver-dev /usr/sbin/kamailio[15340]: INFO: {1 40742 MESSAGE YsfZ7Rq-WGw33NUn9AFMWEuurzryvzET} <script>: SIPMessage-in-request = 192.168.58.1:53606-sip:s-user.02@sip-dev.example.com-MESSAGE sip:s-user.02@sip-dev.example.com SIP/2.0 Record-Route: <sip:192.168.58.1:15006;transport=tcp;r2=on;lr> Record-Route: <sip:sip-test.example.com:16005;transport=tls;r2=on;lr> Via: SIP/2.0/TCP 192.168.58.1:15006;branch=z9hG4bKa257.add27f134dd83c78aef13ca7798f87ca.0;i=6 Via: SIP/2.0/TLS 192.168.58.1:39592;received=192.168.58.1;rport=39592;branch=z9hG4bKPjajkY.0NlW2AFuz3.BRaKH4EdvdmQTs9L;alias Max-Forwards: 69 From: <sip:s-user.03@sip-dev.example.com>;tag=VnOekkKsq4tLhFAywXzbxLXxIesWscn3 To: <sip:s-user.02@sip-dev.example.com> Call-ID: YsfZ7Rq-WGw33NUn9AFMWEuurzryvzET CSeq: 40742 MESSAGE Accept: text/plain, application/im-iscomposing+xml Content-Type: text/plain Content-Length: 59 ################## MESSAGE ################### Dec 6 11:57:09 qcast-webserver-dev /usr/sbin/kamailio[15340]: INFO: {1 40743 MESSAGE YsfZ7Rq-WGw33NUn9AFMWEuurzryvzET} <script>: SIPMessage-in-request = 192.168.58.1:53606-sip:s-user.02@sip-dev.example.com-MESSAGE sip:s-user.02@sip-dev.example.com SIP/2.0 Record-Route: <sip:192.168.58.1:15006;transport=tcp;r2=on;lr> Record-Route: <sip:sip-test.example.com:16005;transport=tls;r2=on;lr> Via: SIP/2.0/TCP 192.168.58.1:15006;branch=z9hG4bKb257.83b972054df1675806975159ae1f1e43.0;i=6 Via: SIP/2.0/TLS 192.168.58.1:39592;received=192.168.58.1;rport=39592;branch=z9hG4bKPjfan-Tte.vtL8brkWb20wm.5b8iuVEtQV;alias Max-Forwards: 69 From: <sip:s-user.03@sip-dev.example.com>;tag=VnOekkKsq4tLhFAywXzbxLXxIesWscn3 To: <sip:s-user.02@sip-dev.example.com> Call-ID: YsfZ7Rq-WGw33NUn9AFMWEuurzryvzET CSeq: 40743 MESSAGE Accept: text/plain, application/im-iscomposing+xml Proxy-Authorization: Digest username="s-user.03", realm="sip-dev.example.com", nonce="Y48hMWOPIAW7JeSQ7/a+cuJ1gKwT8hrC", uri="sip:s-user.02@sip-dev.example.com", response="3b7c34476443e5f1125fa460a4981180", cnonce="3AT-ZMwyfpgaMwlulh5cq5vJHi75-wnz", qop=auth, nc=00000001 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Length: 59 Dec 6 11:57:09 qcast-webserver-dev /usr/sbin/kamailio[15340]: WARNING: {1 40743 MESSAGE YsfZ7Rq-WGw33NUn9AFMWEuurzryvzET} <core> [core/forward.c:228]: get_send_socket2(): protocol/port mismatch (forced tcp:192.168.58.15:15006, to tls:192.168.58.1:60982) Dec 6 11:57:09 qcast-webserver-dev /usr/sbin/kamailio[15340]: ERROR: {1 40743 MESSAGE YsfZ7Rq-WGw33NUn9AFMWEuurzryvzET} tm [ut.h:315]: uri2dst2(): no corresponding socket found for "192.168.58.1" af 2 (tls:192.168.58.1:60982) Dec 6 11:57:09 qcast-webserver-dev /usr/sbin/kamailio[15340]: ERROR: {1 40743 MESSAGE YsfZ7Rq-WGw33NUn9AFMWEuurzryvzET} tm [t_fwd.c:471]: prepare_new_uac(): can't fwd to af 2, proto 3 (no corresponding listening socket) Dec 6 11:57:09 qcast-webserver-dev /usr/sbin/kamailio[15340]: ERROR: {1 40743 MESSAGE YsfZ7Rq-WGw33NUn9AFMWEuurzryvzET} tm [t_fwd.c:1754]: t_forward_nonack(): failure to add branches Dec 6 11:57:09 qcast-webserver-dev /usr/sbin/kamailio[15340]: ERROR: {1 40743 MESSAGE YsfZ7Rq-WGw33NUn9AFMWEuurzryvzET} sl [sl_funcs.c:372]: sl_reply_error(): stateless error reply used: I'm terribly sorry, server error occurred (7/SL) based on what we have understood in the message headers "Via" and Record-Route" there are the right information to reach back the proxy Edge, but looking to the error message it seems that the kamailio register try to reach back the proxy edge through the TLS instead of using the TCP. Could someone put me in the right direction. Thanks Regards -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ing. Giovanni Iamonte Developments and technologies area Quintetto Srl Via Monte Navale, 1 10015 - Ivrea (TO)  mobile: +39 393 9196310  tel: +39 0165 1845290  e-mail: giovanni.iamonte(a)quintetto.it  web: www.quintetto.it

2 4

Packet processing order
by Jawaid Bazyar 06 Dec '22

06 Dec '22

Hi, I have experienced out of order packet processing when testing a simple Kamailio config. The configuration is as follows, basically: request_route{ record_route(); enum_query(); xlog("INVITE ENUM query - To URI $tU"); forward(); } I saw this thread from 2020: https://www.mail-archive.com/sr-users@lists.kamailio.org/msg11786.html The issue seems to be that kamailio process scheduling is naïve – i.e., incoming SIP packets are processed without regard to whether packets received before this one, are currently being processed. This means any packets after the initial INVITE that require more processing, can get reordered. In my test lab I have: SIPp – UAC Kamailio Proxy SIPp – UAS The proxy uses enum NAPR lookups to route calls to +13038151000 to the UAS. Now, if I do SIPp UAC o SIPp UAS directly, I have no problems – no out of order packets. It is only when I introduce Kamailio in the middle that I get OOO packets. See the images attached: uac-to-proxy, proxy, and proxy-to-uas. In this example, Kamailio OOO causes SIPp UAC to fail to “generate audio” – because UAC does not see packets in the correct order, I never turns on the simulated audio. Calls that have in-order dialogs, work fine, and SIPP UAC “pauses” 10 seconds to simulate a phone call. So far, the error rate runs from 1/1000 to around 1/200 – pretty bad. In the thread, a few things were suggested. Have fewer kamailio processes than cores: Did not resolve issue. Try route_locks_size = 256 Did not resolve issue. Though, it did alter it somewhat. But, it is not clear to me how this works – would this setting restrict the number of open calls to 256? Have only one kamailio process: (“children=1”) This works. “Works”, I should say, because this would greatly restrict total platform scalability to a point where it is probably useless for my application. I saw the same issue discussed in the OpenSIPS mailing list from 2010, and the response was “this is not a bug”. Well, I respectfully beg to differ with both OpenSIPS and Kamailio – it IS a bug. I don’t think a proxy should reorder packets involved in a call in a non-deterministic way. In the Kamailio list thread, Alex Balashov discusses the contortions he has to go through to avoid repercussions from this issue. Kamailio as-is probably works fine for relatively low-volume operations. And a lot of the feedback is “why are out of order packets a problem?” OK, sure, in the very specific example given in the 2020 thread, maybe who cares. But in my thinking, there is absolutely nothing preventing Kamailio from generating much more serious OOO scenarios that would cause calls to fail. In my example, Kamailio OOO causes SIPp to fail to “generate audio”. Who knows how other SIP stacks will behave? But the more one will try to scale Kamailio, the more significantly this out of order processing issue will become. The solution to this seems very simple and straightforward – put packets to be processed into a queue PER Call-ID, or something along those lines. In short, the parallelism should be by call, not by packet. What say ye? Have I misunderstood something here? Cheers, Jawaid

4 11

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