sr-users

sr-users@lists.kamailio.org

21 participants
37401 discussions

RTP relay
by hugues 28 Apr '20

28 Apr '20

Hello I'm trying to run Kamailio in front of an asterisk server due to security issues. Both servers have a public ip address. It works fine but the RTP voice traffic goes directly from the VOIP client to the asterisk server without going through the kamailio server. I want to shut down the asterisk server so that it only talks to the kamailio server. UA -> Kamailio public IP addr <-> Asterisk public ip addr How do I force RTP traffic to go through kamailio. Apparently I don't have NAT so I don't need rtpproxy. But you need something that relays RTP traffic? If anyone has an idea I'll take it. Thank you for your help. Hugues. -- Sent from: http://sip-router.1086192.n5.nabble.com/Users-f3.html

4 4

DMQ broadcasting crashes kamailio
by SamyGo 28 Apr '20

28 Apr '20

Hi, Is there a way to broadcast KDMQ to the cluster but not expect a reply back !?as far as I've read the source code dmq_bcast_message is exactly like dmq_send_message in a way that it expects a callback to be executed on response i.e expects a reply. So, the situation I'm facing is I'm broadcasting message to cluster and I do not want a reply back. The following two options result in crash & core dump. 1 - If my script doesn't respond back, by use of dmq_handle_message, it marks the destined servers as "inactive" and stops usrloc sync process which isn't desirable. 2 - If I respond back with the dmq_handle_message it crashes the Kamailio which just received this broadcasted message. Here is how its done in script: *broadcasting message to cluster:* dmq_bcast_message("userOnline", "$fu", "text/plain"); *Receiving and handling a broadcast message:* route[DMQ_HANDLE] { if(!(is_method("KDMQ") || $rm == "KDMQ")) return; if(is_method("KDMQ") || $rm == "KDMQ"){ if($rU =~ "userOnline"){ //user came online in cluster, resume transactions if-any suspended $avp(remoteUser) = $rb; } dmq_handle_message(); exit; } } *Related log lines:* Apr 23 21:15:48 kamailio[916]: ALERT: <script>: [da2c1-2f499] ------ DMQ_HANDLE: UserOnline Event Received ------ Apr 23 21:15:48 kamailio[916]: DEBUG: dmq [message.c:53]: ki_dmq_handle_message_rc(): dmq_handle_message [KDMQ sip:userOnline@9.8.7.123:5060] Apr 23 21:15:48 kamailio[916]: DEBUG: dmq [message.c:66]: ki_dmq_handle_message_rc(): dmq_handle_message peer found: userOnline Apr 23 21:15:48 kamailio[916]: DEBUG: <core> [core/receive.c:437]: receive_msg(): request-route executed in: 401461 usec Apr 23 21:15:48 kamailio[935]: DEBUG: dmq [worker.c:87]: worker_loop(): dmq_worker [2 935] lock acquired and crash/segfault.. Core dump: https://pastebin.com/S7ekCPfF Any help or pointers to solve this would be really appreciated. Best Regards, Sammy

5 13

RFC: C standard requirements
by Daniel-Constantin Mierla 27 Apr '20

27 Apr '20

Hello, (cross-posting because it is relevant to know where users need to run Kamailio as well as what developers tend to use for coding, but replies can go to one or the other list). Somehow I tried to stay close to ANSI-C/C90 with C coding style, for the reason of being compatible as much as possible with old compiles and niche/embedded systems. But I noticed that there are couple of C99 extensions in the core, like inline functions, variadic macros (the debugging macros), use of 'long long' or line comments starting with "//" (not so many, but still such comment style is used). Although I haven't searched for occurrences in core, but I remember seeing designated initializers (or initializing a structure by field names). These are part of C99, as listed by: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C99#Design Although likely GCC had some of them like custom extensions before the standard was out. On the other hand, newer standard C11 made some of those extensions optional: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C11_(C_standard_revision)#Optional_features So, my email here is to figure out if we should consider C99 as the requirement for adding C code or be more restrictive because there are still cases of usage on very specific systems that do not have such C compiler. We can eventually make a list of what is accepted or not from the recent versions of C standard to stay as much as possible portable across Unix'es. >From develeopers perspective, it would be good to learn if they use (in other projects, etc.) extensions of the new standards that they found useful and simplify their programming work. Cheers, Daniel -- Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- www.asipto.com www.twitter.com/miconda -- www.linkedin.com/in/miconda

1 0

how to use get my domain name in VIA header (INVITE) instead of IP address.
by Nasida Yuriy 27 Apr '20

27 Apr '20

Hi guys, It sounds simple but I can not get domain name in VIA header (INVITE) instead of IP address. It is just FS ---INVITE --> Kamailio --INVITE--> endpoint Kamailio gets INVITE, and adds one more VIA with it's IP address. How to get domain name instead ? Please advice.

6 12

Multi INVITE issue
by Pavithra M 27 Apr '20

27 Apr '20

Hi, I have configured kamailio IMS in vm based images. I have configured pcscf,icscf,scscf,hss and ue in five different vms.I am able to successfully make a call via IMS. But when making a INVITE from alice to bob, it goes via ue -> pcscf pcscf -> scscf scscf -> icscf icscf -> scscf scscf -> pcscf (here multiple INVITE is happening and giving 483 Too Many Hops error and then the call is going to UE successfully) pcscf -> ue Can anybody help me what am i missing . why multi INVITE is happening there alone and giving me too many hops issue. Even after that issue how the call reaches the other UE. Kindly anyone help me in this regard atleast where to check this scenario.

2 1

Dialog module problem.
by Voip support 24 Apr '20

24 Apr '20

Hello, i am using dialog module in-memory to get all dialogs and show in a website. I use for this kamctl dialog show which is run quite often for autorefresh. I noticed that some calls get hung on kamailio while on caller side and callee side calls are disconnected. I captured a wireshark trace and for same caller IP i get many good calls as well some bad calls (not disconnected properly). When comparing the BYE packets i could not notice any difference. However in the "BAD" calls it looks like the BYE from caller get stuck on kamailio and is not sent/forwarded to callee side. I get BYE retransmissions from caller and all BYE requests got stuck on kamailio. After few seconds Callee side sends BYE and that BYE also get stuck. I am wondering how to trace this issue (differently than taking a wireshark trace) as i dont see any difference in the good BYE and the bad BYE. It looks like for any reason from time to time BYE is not forwarded to the other side and when the other side sents BYE its also not forwarded to call initiator. Please give me a clue how to continue on this. I am using dispatcher module to send the calls. Best regards Tom

2 2

nat_uac_test(8)
by Sergiu Pojoga 24 Apr '20

24 Apr '20

When receiving an INVITE over a specific LTE carrier, I'm seeing 'c=IN IP4 192.0.0.4' in SDP, which isn't technically a RFC1918 or RFC6598 IP address and thus nat_uac_test(8) fails. What elegant workaround can be done to catch such specific cases? Thanks.

5 11

Kamailio like SBC with Teams
by sip user 24 Apr '20

24 Apr '20

Hello good morning ... I am new to this list and I was starting to mess with Kamailio, mainly to set it up as SBC against Teams, in this case. But I can't get it to work for me. If I launch a call from the Teams, in the Kamailio I see: 1.- In syslog: Apr 15 11:11:41 vps793907 kamailio[23122]: 13(23167) DEBUG: <core> [ip_addr.c:243]: print_ip(): tcpconn_new: new tcp connection: 52.114.7.24 Apr 15 11:11:41 vps793907 kamailio[23122]: 13(23167) DEBUG: <core> [tcp_main.c:1073]: tcpconn_new(): tcpconn_new: on port 4160, type 3 Apr 15 11:11:41 vps793907 kamailio[23122]: 13(23167) DEBUG: <core> [tcp_main.c:1382]: tcpconn_add(): tcpconn_add: hashes: 171:1857:1187, 30 Apr 15 11:11:41 vps793907 kamailio[23122]: 13(23167) DEBUG: <core> [io_wait.h:388]: io_watch_add(): DBG: io_watch_add(0xa1f240, 23, 2, 0x7f90f2438f80), fd_no=17 Apr 15 11:11:41 vps793907 kamailio[23122]: 13(23167) DEBUG: <core> [io_wait.h:610]: io_watch_del(): DBG: io_watch_del (0xa1f240, 23, -1, 0x0) fd_no=18 called Apr 15 11:11:41 vps793907 kamailio[23122]: 13(23167) DEBUG: <core> [tcp_main.c:4219]: handle_tcpconn_ev(): tcp: DBG: sending to child, events 1 Apr 15 11:11:41 vps793907 kamailio[23122]: 13(23167) DEBUG: <core> [tcp_main.c:3902]: send2child(): selected tcp worker 1 10(23159) for activity on [tls:SBC_IP:5061], 0x7f90f2438f80 Apr 15 11:11:41 vps793907 kamailio[23122]: 10(23159) DEBUG: <core> [tcp_read.c:1507]: handle_io(): received n=8 con=0x7f90f2438f80, fd=9 Apr 15 11:11:41 vps793907 kamailio[23122]: 10(23159) DEBUG: tls [tls_server.c:184]: tls_complete_init(): Using TLS domain TLSs<default> Apr 15 11:11:41 vps793907 kamailio[23122]: 10(23159) DEBUG: tls [tls_domain.c:700]: sr_ssl_ctx_info_callback(): SSL handshake started Apr 15 11:11:41 vps793907 kamailio[23122]: 10(23159) DEBUG: <core> [tcp_main.c:2516]: tcpconn_do_send(): tcp_send: sending... Apr 15 11:11:41 vps793907 kamailio[23122]: 10(23159) DEBUG: <core> [tcp_main.c:2550]: tcpconn_do_send(): tcp_send: after real write: c= 0x7f90f2438f80 n=1468 fd=9 Apr 15 11:11:41 vps793907 kamailio[23122]: 10(23159) DEBUG: <core> [tcp_main.c:2551]: tcpconn_do_send(): tcp_send: buf= Apr 15 11:11:41 vps793907 kamailio[23122]: #026#003#003 Apr 15 11:11:41 vps793907 kamailio[23122]: 10(23159) DEBUG: <core> [io_wait.h:388]: io_watch_add(): DBG: io_watch_add(0x9c1700, 9, 2, 0x7f90f2438f80), fd_no=1 Apr 15 11:11:42 vps793907 kamailio[23122]: 10(23159) DEBUG: <core> [tcp_read.c:296]: tcp_read_data(): EOF on 0x7f90f2438f80, FD 9 Apr 15 11:11:42 vps793907 kamailio[23122]: 10(23159) DEBUG: <core> [tcp_read.c:1291]: tcp_read_req(): tcp_read_req: EOF Apr 15 11:11:42 vps793907 kamailio[23122]: 10(23159) DEBUG: <core> [io_wait.h:610]: io_watch_del(): DBG: io_watch_del (0x9c1700, 9, -1, 0x10) fd_no=2 called Apr 15 11:11:42 vps793907 kamailio[23122]: 10(23159) DEBUG: <core> [tcp_read.c:1434]: release_tcpconn(): releasing con 0x7f90f2438f80, state -1, fd=9, id=30 Apr 15 11:11:42 vps793907 kamailio[23122]: 10(23159) DEBUG: <core> [tcp_read.c:1435]: release_tcpconn(): extra_data 0x7f90f2432b40 Apr 15 11:11:42 vps793907 kamailio[23122]: 13(23167) DEBUG: <core> [tcp_main.c:3331]: handle_tcp_child(): handle_tcp_child: reader response= 7f90f2438f80, -1 from 1 Apr 15 11:11:42 vps793907 kamailio[23122]: 13(23167) DEBUG: tls [tls_server.c:604]: tls_h_close(): Closing SSL connection 0x7f90f2432b40 2.- With TCPDUMP: 11:13:09.311797 IP SBC_IP .1024 > SBC_IP .eu.sip-tls: Flags [S], seq 261244614, win 64240, options [mss 1440,nop,wscale 8,nop,nop,sackOK], length 0 11:13:09.311898 IP SBC_IP .eu.sip-tls > 52.114.76.76.1024: Flags [S.], seq 812357247, ack 261244615, win 29200, options [mss 1460,nop,nop,sackOK,nop,wscale 7], length 0 11:13:09.340358 IP 52.114.76.76.1024 > SBC_IP .eu.sip-tls: Flags [.], ack 1, win 2053, length 0 11:13:09.340560 IP 52.114.76.76.1024 > SBC_IP .eu.sip-tls: Flags [P.], seq 1:187, ack 1, win 2053, length 186 11:13:09.340578 IP SBC_IP .eu.sip-tls > 52.114.76.76.1024: Flags [.], ack 187, win 237, length 0 11:13:09.341361 IP SBC_IP .eu.sip-tls > 52.114.76.76.1024: Flags [P.], seq 1:1469, ack 187, win 237, length 1468 11:13:09.369606 IP 52.114.76.76.1024 > SBC_IP .eu.sip-tls: Flags [.], ack 1469, win 2053, length 0 11:13:12.451498 IP 52.114.7.24.1216 > SBC_IP .eu.sip-tls: Flags [S], seq 309084204, win 64240, options [mss 1440,nop,wscale 8,nop,nop,sackOK], length 0 11:13:12.451587 IP SBC_IP .eu.sip-tls > 52.114.7.24.1216: Flags [S.], seq 3275066862, ack 309084205, win 29200, options [mss 1460,nop,nop,sackOK,nop,wscale 7], length 0 11:13:12.707119 IP 52.114.7.24.1216 > SBC_IP .eu.sip-tls: Flags [.], ack 1, win 2053, length 0 11:13:12.707311 IP 52.114.7.24.1216 > SBC_IP .eu.sip-tls: Flags [P.], seq 1:187, ack 1, win 2053, length 186 11:13:12.707345 IP SBC_IP .eu.sip-tls > 52.114.7.24.1216: Flags [.], ack 187, win 237, length 0 11:13:12.708273 IP SBC_IP .eu.sip-tls > 52.114.7.24.1216: Flags [P.], seq 1:1469, ack 187, win 237, length 1468 11:13:12.965101 IP 52.114.7.24.1216 > SBC_IP .eu.sip-tls: Flags [.], ack 1469, win 2053, length 0 11:13:12.965156 IP 52.114.7.24.1216 > SBC_IP .eu.sip-tls: Flags [F.], seq 187, ack 1469, win 2053, length 0 11:13:12.965688 IP SBC_IP .eu.sip-tls > 52.114.7.24.1216: Flags [F.], seq 1469, ack 188, win 237, length 0 11:13:13.220871 IP 52.114.7.24.1216 > SBC_IP .eu.sip-tls: Flags [.], ack 1470, win 2053, length 0 I can't "receive" anything. I have generated the certificates and configured in the tls.cfg of the Kamailio: [server:default] method = TLSv1.2 verify_certificate = no require_certificate = no private_key = /etc/letsencrypt/ssl/cert.key certificate = /etc/letsencrypt/ssl/cert.crt ca_list = /etc/letsencrypt/ssl/ca.crt Within Kamailio itself I have it configured to return a 200 KeepAlive to Teams when it receives an OPTIONS: event_route[tm:local-request] { if(is_method("OPTIONS") && $ru =~ "pstnhub.microsoft.com") { append_hf("Contact: <sip: SBC_DNS :5061;transport=tls>\r\n"); } xlog("L_INFO", "Sent out tm request: $mb\n"); } And I have measured the record_route for this new one: record_route_preset(" SBC_DNS :5061;transport=tls", " SBC_IP :5061"); I have created a dispatcher.list: # setid(integer) destination(sip uri) flags (integer, optional), priority(int,opt), attrs (str,optional) 1:1:sip:sip.pstnhub.microsoft.com;transport=tls 0 3 socket=tls: SBC_IP :5061;ping_from= sip:SBC_DNS 2:1:sip:sip2.pstnhub.microsoft.com;transport=tls 0 2 socket=tls: SBC_IP :5061;ping_from=sip: SBC_DNS 3:1:sip:sip3.pstnhub.microsoft.com;transport=tls 0 1 socket=tls: SBC_IP :5061;ping_from=sip: SBC_DNS 4:1:sip:sip-all.pstnhub.microsoft.com;transport=tls 0 1 socket=tls: SBC_IP :5061;ping_from=sip: SBC_DNS I think that one of the problems is that I do not send the OPTIONS to the Teams well, since it is on their panel, it indicates that the SBC is INACTIVE. I don't know if you could help me straighten this out a bit ... Thank you so much for everything.. a greeting

5 15

Check if Kamailio is going to CANCEL branch
by Ivan Ribakov 24 Apr '20

24 Apr '20

Hi all, Upon receiving a provisional response from callee in a branch route, is there a way of telling if Kamailio is going to automatically CANCEL that branch because a final reply was received from another branch before that? The closest I got is finding “cancel_b_method” parameter of the TM module, but that is not what I’m after. Previously I was recommended to debug via logging onreply_route but I’m not really sure what information may contain hints of intention to send CANCEL. Does anyone have any suggestions/guesses in which direction I should be digging? Thanks, Ivan

1 0

[info] matrix chat room for kamailio
by Daniel-Constantin Mierla 23 Apr '20

23 Apr '20

Thanks to the efforts made by Fred Posner, a matrix.org server has been installed on Kamailio project infrastructure (matrix.kamailio.dev - server sponsored by lod.com), which enables us to create chat rooms as we need for our community of users and developers. It tries to be an alternative to the existing IRC #kamailio channel, given that a while ago freenode.net had to enforce user registration to join the channels on their service (not complaining about it, they did it for good reasons to protect against spammers and D/DoS attacks). The #kamailio channel on freenode.net will still be in use by the people that like it, there is no plan to consider it obsolete. One of the main benefits of running own matrix server is the ability to allow guest access during the devel online meetings, so people that do not want to create an account can still participate by using a web browser. Also, it offers modern encryption and privacy, along with richer collaboration features (e.g., file sharing), many considering it a viable open source alternative to Slack or other private team collaboration services. The first room created is #kamailio:matrix.kamailio.dev : * https://riot.kamailio.dev/#/room/#kamailio:matrix.kamailio.dev The matrix server is federated, so you can join if you have an account on any other public federated matrix server or one that you can host yourself. The server on matrix.kamailio.dev is not allowing public registrations. If you are a registered developer (have git commit access) and need a matrix account, let us know and we will find solutions. It is the first phase now and based on the interest from the community, its usage can be increased (e.g., creating rooms for development notifications (commits, pull requests, issue); bridge to irc channel; etc...) or the server can be shut down if proves not useful. We will try to do the next online devel meeting (scheduled for Wednesday, April 29, 2020, at 14:00UTC) on the matrix chat room mentioned above. More details at: * https://www.kamailio.org/w/2020/04/matrix-chat-room-for-kamailio/ Stay safe and healthy! Cheers, Daniel -- Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- www.asipto.com www.twitter.com/miconda -- www.linkedin.com/in/miconda

1 0

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