sr-users

sr-users@lists.kamailio.org

37 participants
37511 discussions

"no corresponding socket found" logs
by David Escartín 22 Sep '23

22 Sep '23

Hello all we are seeing these kind of logs in a Debian GNU/Linux 11 using kamailio 5.5.6 Sep 21 17:41:13 lax-dedge-1 /usr/local/kamailio/sbin/kamailio[3155702]: ERROR: <core> [core/forward.c:183]: get_out_socket(): no corresponding socket found for(udp:164.152.22.248:5060) Sep 21 17:41:13 lax-dedge-1 /usr/local/kamailio/sbin/kamailio[3155698]: ERROR: <core> [core/forward.c:183]: get_out_socket(): no corresponding socket found for(udp:208.74.138.184:5060) Sep 21 17:41:13 lax-dedge-1 /usr/local/kamailio/sbin/kamailio[3155695]: ERROR: <core> [core/forward.c:183]: get_out_socket(): no corresponding socket found for(udp:208.74.138.181:5060) Sep 21 17:41:14 lax-dedge-1 /usr/local/kamailio/sbin/kamailio[3155693]: ERROR: <core> [core/forward.c:183]: get_out_socket(): no corresponding socket found for(udp:38.102.250.60:5060) Sep 21 17:41:14 lax-dedge-1 /usr/local/kamailio/sbin/kamailio[3155707]: ERROR: <core> [core/forward.c:183]: get_out_socket(): no corresponding socket found for(udp:87.1.1.27:5060) Sep 21 17:41:14 lax-dedge-1 /usr/local/kamailio/sbin/kamailio[3155707]: ERROR: tm [ut.h:302]: uri2dst2(): no corresponding socket for "87.1.1.27" af 2 Sep 21 17:41:14 lax-dedge-1 /usr/local/kamailio/sbin/kamailio[3155707]: ERROR: tm [t_fwd.c:470]: prepare_new_uac(): can't fwd to af 2, proto 1 (no corresponding listening socket) Sep 21 17:41:14 lax-dedge-1 /usr/local/kamailio/sbin/kamailio[3155697]: ERROR: <core> [core/forward.c:183]: get_out_socket(): no corresponding socket found for(udp:208.74.138.184:5060) Sep 21 17:41:14 lax-dedge-1 /usr/local/kamailio/sbin/kamailio[3155694]: ERROR: <core> [core/forward.c:183]: get_out_socket(): no corresponding socket found for(udp:192.40.216.97:5060) Sep 21 17:41:14 lax-dedge-1 /usr/local/kamailio/sbin/kamailio[3155694]: ERROR: <core> [core/forward.c:183]: get_out_socket(): no corresponding socket found for(udp:208.74.138.180:5060) Sep 21 17:41:14 lax-dedge-1 /usr/local/kamailio/sbin/kamailio[3155714]: ERROR: <core> [core/forward.c:183]: get_out_socket(): no corresponding socket found for(udp:87.1.1.27:5060) The kamailio instance we are using is receiving around 1500 calls per second in average when we do start seeing these errors more frequently In this instance we are using multihomed the listen address list is children=14 socket_workers=1 listen=udp:192.168.99.70:5081 listen=udp:192.168.99.81:5060 listen=udp:87.1.1.27:5060 listen=tcp:192.168.96.105:8095 listen=tcp:87.1.1.27:5060 tcp_children=6 port=5060 We use the first worker only to perform the OPTIONS requests from the dispatcher module. The sockets listen=udp:192.168.99.81:5060 listen=udp:87.1.1.27:5060 are used to communicate both A and B legs so when a message is received at 192.168.99.81:5060 we send it to 87.1.1.27:5060 and viceversa We were using $fs variable before doing the t_relay() function. This way is working, but when load increases, seems sometimes kamailio doesn't get the proper socket to forward the reply. I think the errors mainly are related to responses which are being forwarded, like if the function get_sock_info_list was not able to retrieve the listen interfaces we have tried to set in the onreply routes the commands set_recv_socket("udp:192.168.99.81:5060"); set_send_socket("udp:87.1.1.27:5060"); (when reply goes from private to public domain) and it seems it reduces the number of Sep 21 17:41:13 lax-dedge-1 /usr/local/kamailio/sbin/kamailio[3155702]: ERROR: <core> [core/forward.c:183]: get_out_socket(): no corresponding socket found for(udp:164.152.22.248:5060) Sep 21 17:41:13 lax-dedge-1 /usr/local/kamailio/sbin/kamailio[3155698]: ERROR: <core> [core/forward.c:183]: get_out_socket(): no corresponding socket found for(udp:208.74.138.184:5060) Sep 21 17:41:13 lax-dedge-1 /usr/local/kamailio/sbin/kamailio[3155695]: ERROR: <core> [core/forward.c:183]: get_out_socket(): no corresponding socket found for(udp:208.74.138.181:5060) Sep 21 17:41:14 lax-dedge-1 /usr/local/kamailio/sbin/kamailio[3155693]: ERROR: <core> [core/forward.c:183]: get_out_socket(): no corresponding socket found for(udp:38.102.250.60:5060) errors But i honestly don't know why the Sep 21 17:41:14 lax-dedge-1 /usr/local/kamailio/sbin/kamailio[3155707]: ERROR: tm [ut.h:302]: uri2dst2(): no corresponding socket for "87.1.1.27" af 2 Sep 21 17:41:14 lax-dedge-1 /usr/local/kamailio/sbin/kamailio[3155707]: ERROR: tm [t_fwd.c:470]: prepare_new_uac(): can't fwd to af 2, proto 1 (no corresponding listening socket) appear We aldso tried to increase the kernel buffers rmem and wmem from 208KB (as we had by default) to 4MB Do you know a reason which could cause these logs to appear? Any setup that could mitigate them? thanks a lot and regards david escartin -- <http://www.sonoc.io/> David Escartín NOC engineer www.sonoc.io [image: LinkedIn] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/sonoc> [image: Twitter] <https://twitter.com/sonoc_> [image: Instagram] <https://www.instagram.com/sonoc.io/> This e-mail is for the exclusive use of its recipients and may contain business secrets or other confidential or privileged information. Any unauthorised use, copying, publication or distribution of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please inform us immediately by replying to this e-mail and delete it, including any attachments or copies on your system. In accordance with the GDPR (EU) 2016/679 and the LOPDGDD 3/2018, we inform you that this e-mail address and/or any other personal data you have provided us with will be treated by SONOC with absolute confidentiality and with the only purpose of providing you with the requested services, due to your condition as a client, supplier or because you have requested information from us at any time. These data will only be kept for as long as required to comply with legal obligations. You can exercise your rights at any time by sending an e-mail to: dataprotection(a)sonoc.io. <dataprotection(a)sonoc.io>

1 0

Change in mailing list configuration related to DMARC spam filtering
by Henning Westerholt 22 Sep '23

22 Sep '23

Hello, due to some changes from certain cloud infrastructure provider related to spam filtering with DMARC, we need to change the list manager "mailman" configuration for the following lists: * sr-users * sr-user-es * sr-dev * business * sr-docs * kamailio-announce * the administrative mailing list The change will impact the "From" that is displayed in your email program. Without that change large e-mail providers (Gmail, Microsoft O365) will reject messages from a sender with certain strict DMARC policy. This is already affecting several people on the lists (for example with GitHub notice mails), but over time the problem will certainly increase. Regarding the technical change: We will munge the From: header so it doesn't contain the domain that triggers the DMARC rejection. Essentially, the Mailman list takes ownership of the message and injects its own address into the From: header. This can affect reply-to-sender, although we add the original From: address in the Reply-To: header (or sometimes the Cc: header) to reduce the impact of this. We plan to do this for all emails unconditionally, regardless of their sender DMARC policy, to have an identical behaviour for all users. Please refer to this [1] page for more details. For a general description of DMARC refer to this page [2]. This change should have not a big impact for you, but some users might need to adapt some mail filters. Therefore, we would like to gather feedback on that change from you. We expect that the most visible change is that It will be not possible anymore to just reply by e-mail to mails from GitHub and have them "automatically" added to the discussed issue. This feature was so far used rarely and only from a few people. We plan to implement this change by the end of this week, when its done it will be also shortly announced. Best regards, Henning Westerholt [1] https://wiki.list.org/DEV/DMARC [2] https://dmarc.org/overview/ -- Henning Westerholt - https://skalatan.de/blog/ Kamailio services - https://gilawa.com<https://gilawa.com/>

1 1

RTP traffic through kamailio
by Shravan 22 Sep '23

22 Sep '23

2 1

insert_dlg_timer(): Trying to insert a bogus dlg
by Benoît Panizzon 22 Sep '23

22 Sep '23

Hi Team Could anyone point me in the direction where I could find out more what's going wrong and what could be the cause of messages like: Sep 22 07:32:29 dev-core02 kamailio[915066]: CRITICAL: dialog [dlg_timer.c:129]: insert_dlg_timer(): Trying to insert a bogus dlg tl=0x7f9617d967b0 tl->next=0x7f9618e11198 tl->prev=0x7f9617e20548 Sep 22 07:32:29 dev-core02 kamailio[915066]: CRITICAL: dialog [dlg_dmq.c:314]: dlg_dmq_handle_msg(): Unable to insert dlg timer 0x7f9617d96750 [1598:12168] Are the numbers in brackets [hash_id:hash_entry] ? -- 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 ______________________________________________________

1 0

Dialog: bogus event 2 in state 3
by Benoît Panizzon 21 Sep '23

21 Sep '23

Hi Team I'm still hunting dialog errors which cause my dialog counters to divert and stick around, basically exploding in my face now and then. I suppose they are DMQ related (maybe packet loss, maybe retransmissions, maybe generic overloading of the virtualized kamailio instances) causing issues with inserting dialog timers on the peer etc. So for the moment I'm running only one instance, no DMQ peer. What I still occasionally see are messages: INVITE]dialog [dlg_hash.c:1182]: next_state_dlg(): bogus event 2 in state 3 for dlg 0x7ff906294be8 [2482:872] with clid 'A8459C74@7f33ff47' and tags '7f33ff47+1+7d820120+89494caf' '3904288054-1882699775' I found an ancient post, confirming this to be an open bug in Kamailio 1.4 and race condition between the 200 OK reply to an INVITE and the ACK confirming the 200 OK. Someone attempted to backport a fix for opensips to kamailio. Indeed, I see this message occur occasionally after managing the 200 OK reply and routing the ACK. Does anyone know, if this is still a open bug with Kamailio 5.5? Or what else could be the cause of this message? -- 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 ______________________________________________________

1 0

Floating Point in variables and arithmetic
by Barry Flanagan 21 Sep '23

21 Sep '23

Hi I need to take in a priority (from 0 to 100, 0 being highest prio) and convert this into a Q value between 0 and 1.0 My idea was to simply do: q_value = 1 - ($var(priority)/100) However, it seems Kamailio only deals in integers in the config. A Previous post suggested using xavp vars, but this ends up the same result. Apart from doing a pseudo SQL query "SELECT 1 - (20/100)" is there any way within the config I can do such maths? Thanks -- -Barry Flanagan

2 8

uac_auth() in KEMI Python - Drop 401 sent to caller
by Marrold 21 Sep '23

21 Sep '23

Hi all, I'm attempting to use the uac module in KEMI (Python) to authenticate outbound requests. When the downstream replies with a 401 the proxy correctly re-sends the request with a Authorization header, but the 401 is also relayed to the caller. As far as I can tell I've converted the example to KEMI correctly, but no matter what I try the 401 is still sent to the caller. Any ideas? The config I'm using is below - The avps are set when the request is sent so aren't visible here. Thanks def ksr_failure_manage(self, msg): if self.ksr_route_natmanage(msg)==-255 : return 1 if KSR.tm.t_is_canceled()>0 : return 1 if KSR.tm.t_check_status("401|407") >0 : KSR.info(f"Got a 40X, should attempt authentication") if KSR.uac.uac_auth()>0: KSR.tm.t_relay() KSR.info (f"Dropping further replies") KSR.set_drop() exit() return 1

2 1

Handle the DNS SRV to manage failover
by Massimo Dal Sasso 20 Sep '23

20 Sep '23

I need to manage failover in the connection between SCSCF and AS. I need to understand how it is possible to configure Kamailio to handle the DNS SRV to manage failover for UAS transaction like REGISTER. I see that it works for UAC transaction like INVITE, but I am not able to configure Kamailio to work for UAS transaction. Thanks, Massimo ________________________________ Massimo Dal Sasso SW Developer massimo.dalsasso(a)ext.athonet.com [Athonet logo]<https://www.athonet.com/> the mobile core that works for you Athonet Italy Via Cà del Luogo 6/8 36050 Bolzano Vicentino Vicenza-Italy +39 0444 750045 This email and any attachments are confidential and intended solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you are not the named addressee, please be aware that you shall not distribute, copy, use or disclose this email. If you have received this email by error, please notify us immediately and delete this email from your system. Email transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secured or error-free or not to contain viruses. Athonet S.r.l. processes any personal data exchanged in email correspondence in accordance with EU Reg. 679/2016 (GDPR) - you may find here the privacy policy with information on such processing and your rights. Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the sender and do not necessarily represent those of Athonet S.r.l.

1 0

Creating CDRs for Missed and failed calls
by Marrold 19 Sep '23

19 Sep '23

Hi all, I'm using the acc module along with postgres to generate CDRs. For connected calls the CDRs are created as expected, but in the scenario where a lookup() fails and Kamailio sends a stateless 404 there's no CDR logged. I'm setting the FLT_ACCMISSED and FLT_ACCFAILED flags in the initial request route, but perhaps I have a misunderstanding of how these work? Thanks Matthew

2 2

How to validate re-invites without challenging them?
by Benoit Panizzon 19 Sep '23

19 Sep '23

Hi List At the moment, we challenge every invite (and re-invite) to make sure the customer is authenticated. Now we have one kind of PBX, which never does not authenticate when we challenge a Re-Invite. According to the vendor of that PBX's RFC interpretation, answering a challenge to a re-invite is optional. If that is ignored by the PBX, then the existing established dialog shall not end. Unfortunately this causes the session timer to run out. I am therefore wondering, if there is a safe way not to challenge re-invites. A Re-Invite contains a To-Tag. So I could bypass authentication on presence of a to-Tag. But then, how do I prevent a customer to just set a spoofed To-Tag to circumvent authentication? Is there a feasible way? 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 ______________________________________________________

4 3

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