sr-users

sr-users@lists.kamailio.org

37388 discussions

Releasing Kamailio v5.5.3
by Daniel-Constantin Mierla 24 Nov '21

24 Nov '21

Hello, I am considering to release Kamailio v5.5.3 sometime next week, likely on Wednesday or Thursday (Nov 24/25, 2021). This is the usual heads up notification to see if anyone is aware of issues not yet reported to bug tracker and if yes, do it as soon as possible to give them a chance to be fixed. Cheers, Daniel -- Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- www.asipto.com www.twitter.com/miconda -- www.linkedin.com/in/miconda

2 3

UDP packets lost - tuning Linux system configuration - Kamailio using default for SO_RCVBUF ?
by Chaigneau, Nicolas 23 Nov '21

23 Nov '21

Hello, I'm using Kamailio 5.5.2 with UDP sockets, configured with 32 children processes. During load tests, some packets seem to be dropped. I'm trying to figure out why, and how to solve (or mitigate) the issue. >From what I understand : < the SIP messages send on UDP/SCTP are received directly from the buffer in kernel one by one, each being processed once read. > (this is a message from Daniel-Constantin Mierla, posted on the mailing list back in 2014 - I assume this is still accurate) So Kamailio does not handle its own buffers for incoming messages, but simply pulls one message from the kernel queue whenever a process is available for processing. (Correct me if this is not true) Hereafter some system parameters that seem interesting to me. In particular, < net.core.rmem.default > seem very low (0,33 MB). But < net.core.rmem.max > is much higher (16 MB). Looking at the code in function probe_max_receive_buffer (src\core\udp_server.c), it seems Kamailio is trying to increase the buffer size from the default. However this does not seem to be working, seeing the following logs upon startup : 0(7602) INFO: <core> [core/udp_server.c:154]: probe_max_receive_buffer(): SO_RCVBUF is initially 349520 0(7602) INFO: <core> [core/udp_server.c:206]: probe_max_receive_buffer(): SO_RCVBUF is finally 349520 0(7602) INFO: <core> [core/udp_server.c:154]: probe_max_receive_buffer(): SO_RCVBUF is initially 349520 0(7602) INFO: <core> [core/udp_server.c:206]: probe_max_receive_buffer(): SO_RCVBUF is finally 349520 0(7602) INFO: <core> [core/udp_server.c:154]: probe_max_receive_buffer(): SO_RCVBUF is initially 349520 0(7602) INFO: <core> [core/udp_server.c:206]: probe_max_receive_buffer(): SO_RCVBUF is finally 349520 Is there something I don't understand ? could it be a bug ? One quick fix I can think of would be to increase < net.core.rmem.default >. Considering that I don't have many sockets (3 used by Kamailio), I think I could set this to 16 MB (my VMs have 8 GB of allocated RAM). What do you think ? Thanks in advance for your help. My system parameters : net.core.rmem_default = 349520 net.core.rmem_max = 16777216 # => 0,33 MB / 16 MB respectively * net.core.rmem_default, net.core.rmem_max - default and max socket receive buffer size in bytes. Each socket gets rmem_default reveive buffer size by default, and can request up to rmem_max with setsockopt<http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/setsockopt.2.html> option SO_RCVBUF. net.ipv4.udp_mem = 188856 251809 377712 * net.ipv4.udp_mem = "min pressure max" - these are numbers of PAGES (4KB) available for all UDP sockets in the system. min, pressure and max controls how memory is managed, but main point is that max is maximum size in PAGES for all UDP bufers in system. These values are set on boot time (if sysctls are not explicitly set) according to available RAM size. # 377712 x 4 KB => 1475 MB net.ipv4.udp_rmem_min = 4096 * net.ipv4.udp_rmem_min, net.ipv4.udp_wmem - minimal size for receive/send buffers (in bytes), guaranteed for each socket, even if if buffer size of all UDP sockets exceeds pressure parameter in net.ipv4.udp_mem. Regards, Nicolas. This message contains information that may be privileged or confidential and is the property of the Capgemini Group. It is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy, disseminate, distribute, or use this message or any part thereof. If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this message.

2 2

Custom info in Contact header
by Igor Olhovskiy 23 Nov '21

23 Nov '21

Hello! On REGISTER I have a Contact header like Contact: <sip:90002@192.168.0.26:48579;transport=TLS>;some_id=90002-21080 But on calling fix_nated_register() -> save(), param some_id is lost from info, so, on INVITE to this account, some_id not appears in RURI. Is this a bug or a feature and I do need to find some workaround? -- Best regards, Igor

4 6

Help with Async transaction responses
by Michael Friesen 19 Nov '21

19 Nov '21

Hello, I am attempting to perform some asynchronous lookup upon receiving an INVITE and then reply with a 3xx response with a modified From header. My workflow now is to create a transaction when receiving the INVITE, suspend the transaction, perform the asynchronous lookup, continue the transaction upon response, and then modify the From header and reply. The ONLY problem I am having is modifying the From header! How can I modify the From header in this scenario? function ksr_request_route() if KSR.is_INVITE() then if KSR.tm.t_newtran() then cache_transaction_info() KSR.tmx.t_suspend() --perform async loookup end end return 1 end --This function called on response from async lookup. Equivalent of ONREPLY_ROUTE function ksr_reply_route() --Finds the transaction_index and transaction_label from a cache KSR.tmx.t_continue(transaction_index, transaction_label, "redirect_transaction"); KSR.x.drop() return 1 end function redirect_transaction() KSR.pv.sets("$fU", "Jenny") --Doesn't actually modify the from username for 302 response! KSR.tm.t_reply(302, "Redirecting") return 1 end Thank you much! -Michael

2 2

+ character in send_reply causes truncation of reply message?
by Benoît Panizzon 18 Nov '21

18 Nov '21

Hi send_reply("403", "+411234567 transit disallowed"); Causes the reply to be truncated after the e164 number. send_reply("403", "Forbidden +411234567 transit disallowed"); Causes the reply to be truncated after 'Forbidden'. Is there a special meaning to the + character? -- Mit freundlichen Grüssen -Benoît Panizzon- @ HomeOffice und normal erreichbar -- 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

configuration dispatcher
by sondes boughdiri 17 Nov '21

17 Nov '21

Hi ALL I need to configure dispatcher call to the server asterisk i have a 21 server and i need to dispatcher call to all the server AGENT----> kamailio --->asterisk1 ---> asteisk2 ---> - ---> - ---> - ---> asterisk21 please i need your help THANK YOU

2 1

ki_jsonrpcs_dispatch(): invalid json doc
by Patrick Karton 16 Nov '21

16 Nov '21

hello , im using kamailio and rtpengine. i use rtpengine with rtp timeout as follows rtpengine --timeout=240 --silent-timeout=600 -b2b-url=http://kamailioip:5060/RPC --xmlrpc-format=2 and in kamailio modparam("jsonrpcs", "pretty_format", 1) modparam("jsonrpcs", "transport", 7) event_route[xhttp:request] { if ($hu =~ "^/RPC") { jsonrpc_dispatch(); xhttp_reply("200", "OK", "text/xml", "<methodResponse><params><param><value><string>OK</string></value></param></params></methodResponse>"); exit; } } rtpengine successfully reaches the rpc endpoint but i have an error on the jsonrpcs module 43(50) ERROR: jsonrpcs [jsonrpcs_mod.c:1275]: ki_jsonrpcs_dispatch(): invalid json doc [[<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <methodCall> <methodName>dlg.terminate_dlg</methodName> <params> <param><value><string>1-10(a)172.22.244.139</string></value></param> <param><value><string>10SIPpTag091</string></value></param> <param><value><string>8U173ymKpc1pp</string></value></param> </params> </methodCall> ]] and so the dialog module can not ends the call Kamailio 5.5.2 on debian bullseye rtpengine 10.0.1.8 on debian bullseye Thanks.

1 0

xavp functionnality in htable
by Patrick Karton 15 Nov '21

15 Nov '21

hello, do we have something like xavp in htable or a module that implements having multiple values in stack like xavp but not tied to transaction. i want data be seen by all processes but with the functionnality of xavp. Thanks.

3 3

Info: Astricon 2021 - Asterisk and LRKProxy Session
by Mojtaba 13 Nov '21

13 Nov '21

Hello, The Asterisk conference (Astricon 2021) happened last week, I had a session about extending Asterisk with the LRKProxy module in Kamailio in terms of RTP sessions. cheers, -- --Mojtaba Esfandiari.S

2 3

corex send()
by Ross McKillop 12 Nov '21

12 Nov '21

Hi All, Is there an equivalent to corex's send_tcp (https://kamailio.org/docs/modules/5.2.x/modules/corex.html#corex.f.send_tcp <https://kamailio.org/docs/modules/5.2.x/modules/corex.html#corex.f.send_tcp>) for TLS? I have a bit of an odd edge case where I can't add Via headers etc, and send_udp and send_tcp allow me to achieve what I want, but it doesn't seem to have a means of doing the same with TLS? Essentially I want to transparently proxy what is received by Kamailio on one interface to a TLS connection e.g. A = (TCP) => Kamailio = (TLS) => Remote Host (A) in this instance is already setting a Via header of the Kamailio's external IP and transport tis. I appreciate this is a non-standard way of doing it, but (A) is a black box that I can't change, what I'm essentially trying to do is have Kamailio handle the TLS but essentially (A) thinks it's at the edge. I can make it work with send_tcp for a standard TCP connection, but if I use t_relay or even forward() to send onwards by TLS then Kamailio obviously adds its own headers as you'd expect. Ross

2 2

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