sr-users

sr-users@lists.kamailio.org

11 participants
37526 discussions

Getting 407 response when calling out (on bulk registration)
by Al S 17 Jun '15

17 Jun '15

Hi, A bulk registration has been added to the "location" table:*************************** 1. row *************************** id: 113 ruid: uloc-55808d5a-33bc-1 username: pbx domain: NULL contact: sip:pbx@10.10.10.157:5060;bnc received: NULL path: NULL expires: 2015-06-17 10:08:42 q: -1.00 callid: 1-15061(a)10.10.10.157 cseq: 2last_modified: 2015-06-17 09:08:42 flags: 0 cflags: 0 user_agent: SIPp/Win32 … [View More]

1 0

kamailio sending 408 request time out
by Priyaranjan Nayak 17 Jun '15

17 Jun '15

Hi All, I am using kamailio-4.2.5 for testing setup. After starting the kamailio I am getting below message /usr/local/sbin/kamailio -f /usr/local/etc/kamailio/kamailio.cfg -N 20 -m 512 -M 8 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio -f /usr/local/etc/kamailio/kamailio.cfg -E loading modules under config path: /usr/local/lib64/kamailio/modules/ 0(24471) WARNING: <core> [socket_info.c:1392]: fix_hostname(): could not rev. resolve 192.168.1.118 0(24471) WARNING: <core> [socket_info.c:1392]: … [View More]fix_hostname(): could not rev. resolve 192.168.1.118 Listening on udp: 192.168.1.118:4060 tcp: 192.168.1.118:4060 Aliases: 0(24471) INFO: <core> [tcp_main.c:4748]: init_tcp(): using epoll_lt as the io watch method (auto detected) 0(24473) INFO: rr [../outbound/api.h:54]: ob_load_api(): Failed to import bind_ob 0(24473) INFO: rr [rr_mod.c:160]: mod_init(): outbound module not available 0(24473) INFO: usrloc [hslot.c:53]: ul_init_locks(): locks array size 1024 0(24473) INFO: <core> [udp_server.c:175]: probe_max_receive_buffer(): SO_RCVBUF is initially 212992 0(24473) INFO: <core> [udp_server.c:225]: probe_max_receive_buffer(): SO_RCVBUF is finally 425984 8(24481) INFO: ctl [io_listener.c:225]: io_listen_loop(): io_listen_loop: using epoll_lt io watch method (config) Once I sent the request to kamailio server, I am not getting 408 request time out from kamailio and getting below log 12(24485) ERROR: <core> [tcp_read.c:299]: tcp_read_data(): error reading: Connection reset by peer (104) 12(24485) ERROR: <core> [tcp_read.c:1326]: tcp_read_req(): ERROR: tcp_read_req: error reading 9(24482) ERROR: <core> [tcp_read.c:299]: tcp_read_data(): error reading: Connection reset by peer (104) 9(24482) ERROR: <core> [tcp_read.c:1326]: tcp_read_req(): ERROR: tcp_read_req: error reading 12(24485) ERROR: <core> [tcp_read.c:299]: tcp_read_data(): error reading: Connection reset by peer (104) 12(24485) ERROR: <core> [tcp_read.c:1326]: tcp_read_req(): ERROR: tcp_read_req: error reading 10(24483) ERROR: <core> [tcp_read.c:299]: tcp_read_data(): error reading: Connection reset by peer (104) 10(24483) ERROR: <core> [tcp_read.c:1326]: tcp_read_req(): ERROR: tcp_read_req: error reading 13(24486) ERROR: <core> [tcp_main.c:4162]: handle_tcpconn_ev(): connect 192.168.1.114:61945 failed 13(24486) ERROR: <core> [tcp_main.c:4162]: handle_tcpconn_ev(): connect 192.168.1.114:19129 failed 13(24486) ERROR: <core> [tcp_main.c:4162]: handle_tcpconn_ev(): connect 192.168.1.114:6050 failed Could you please give me any idea how to resolve this issue ? Thanks Priyaranjan [View Less]

2 1

http_query failed to perform curl (28) errors
by Armen Babikyan 17 Jun '15

17 Jun '15

Hello, I am running across the same issue as described here: http://lists.sip-router.org/pipermail/sr-users/2015-February/086796.html Was there a resolution to this issue? I come across this issue fairly regularly. Unlike the OP, however, I do not have any luck by retrying my query: when I place my http_query within a while loop and keep 1-second delays between calls, all consistently fail with error 28. After long pauses, http_query()s start to work as expected. I think that previous … [View More]

2 1

Not found error when Siremis login
by Chathura Senanayake 17 Jun '15

17 Jun '15

Hello, I need a help with siremis-4.2.0. When I try to login the the Siremis, it shows a 404 Not found error message as follow. Not Found The requested URL /siremis/system/general_default was not found on this server. ------------------------------ *Chathura Senanayake* Associate Software Engineer (DA) hSenid Mobile Solutions *Head Office* (Singapore)*P*: +65 65 332 140*M*: *F*: +65 62 910 023 *R&D* (Sri Lanka)*P*: +94 11 268 3751*M*: +94 71 757 9646*F*: +94 11 268 3951 <http://www.… [View More]

1 0

Kamailio Crash
by Marc Soda 17 Jun '15

17 Jun '15

Is it normal for Kamailio to segfault on a duplicate key in the usrloc DB? Jun 15 18:15:23 vproxy2 /usr/sbin/kamailio[13646]: ERROR: db_mysql [km_dbase.c:122]: db_mysql_submit_query(): driver error on query: Duplicate entry 'uloc-557a96c1-3577-4e5f1' for key 'ruid_idx' Jun 15 18:15:23 vproxy2 /usr/sbin/kamailio[13646]: ERROR: <core> [db_query.c:337]: db_do_update(): error while submitting query Jun 15 18:15:23 vproxy2 /usr/sbin/kamailio[13646]: ERROR: usrloc [ucontact.c:800]: … [View More]

4 4

loose_route to find transport=tcp
by Ryan Kendrick 16 Jun '15

16 Jun '15

We are using Kamailio 4.2.5 as a registrar and proxy between many dispersed end-users of a soft phone app and our calling platform / switch. Until now we have used udp exclusively but are trying to introduce tcp between end-users and Kamailio, leaving udp between Kam and our switch...while maintaining the ability for some end-users to use udp to Kam. With some simple address checks I am able to always send to our switch over udp. If all end-users used tcp I could send everything else tcp, … [View More]but I need to maintain udp support. The specific problem I am having is on a reINVITE such as this one from our platform to the a-leg: INVITE sip:xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx:42679;user=phone SIP/2.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP xxxxxxxxxxxxx:5060;branch=z9hG4bK218cc8e12ll5035f67INV6a67885312aad Max-Forwards: 35 Route: <sip:xxxxxxxxxxx;lr;r2=on;ftag=daba971c;did=b57.4872;nat=yes> Route: <sip:xxxxxxxxxxx:5070;transport=tcp;lr;r2=on;ftag=daba971c;did=b57.4872;nat=yes> Contact: <sip:xxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx:5060> To: "xxxxxx"<sip:xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:5070>;tag=daba971c From: <sip:xxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx :5070>;tag=6a678853-co76461-INS002 Call-ID: MDI4ZmFjNmZhN2Y1NWE2ZTViNTkyZGUwNWE2YzUzYmU CSeq: 7646101 INVITE Allow: INVITE,ACK,CANCEL,BYE,REFER,OPTIONS,NOTIFY,SUBSCRIBE,PRACK,INFO,UPDATE Content-Type: application/sdp Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 20:10:18 GMT User-Agent: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Content-Length: 262 As you might notice, we have rr:enable_double_rr set: *There are some situations when the server needs to insert two Record-Route header fields instead of one. For example when using two disconnected networks or doing cross-protocol forwarding from UDP->TCP. This parameter enables inserting of 2 Record-Routes. The server will later remove both of them. * and I believe it is necessary to keep this way. Without it Kamailio doesn't even see the reINVITE...the switch probably tries tcp and that's not setup between the two. The invite above is sent to the a-leg over udp but I would expect and need it to be tcp in this case. The reINVITE is part of an existing dialog. We call loose_route() followed by some simple bflag setting and flag checking, t_on_reply(), ... then t_relay(). I do have a functional workaround but would prefer to avoid such manual handling by utilizing built-in functionality properly. # # relay the message # if(route(TEST_TOGW)) { if (!t_relay_to_udp()) { sl_reply_error(); } } else { if ($(hdr(Route)[-1]) =~ "tcp") { if(!t_relay_to_tcp()) { sl_reply_error(); } } else if (!t_relay()) { sl_reply_error(); } } I'm not 100% sure how reliable or fast this will be, but it does work so far in my simple tests. Is loose_route supposed to see and use the transport=tcp but isn't for some reason? It seems like the right thing to do to me. If not, is there anything else I can/should be doing in the tm and/or rr modules to make Kamailio realize it needs to send this message over TCP? If not in those two modules is there some recommended way perhaps via registrar or usrloc etc. to make Kamailio remember/store when a user is connected via TCP and be able to do a quick lookup before sending to them? Anything else I'm missing or not thinking of? Please let me know if I can further explain and rest assured any assistance will be much appreciated!!! [View Less]

1 0

Keep-Alive in dialog "freeing a free fragment"
by Dirk Teurlings - SIGNET B.V. 16 Jun '15

16 Jun '15

Hi, (Kamailio 4.2.3) Working to get dialogs closed and cleaned up nicely I'm looking into the ka_interval and ka_timer parameter of the dialog module. The following is now happening. Scenario: 1. Call gets setup 2. Callee's internet connection drops 3. Call gets terminated (nicely) due to ka_timer/ka_interval 4. Log fills with "freeing a free fragment" after about 10 seconds Digging into this I saw that the dialog is being closed and cleaned properly in step 3. But it fails to remove/… [View More]

2 12

CANCEL request and subsequent 487 response to INVTE configuration problem
by Joao Alves 16 Jun '15

16 Jun '15

Hi, I'm creating a configuration is for a SIP <> HTTP gateway (performing protocol conversion) and thus all SIP messages and responses needs to be generated from the kamailio config file. I'm failing to create the case where the calling user abandons the session, and thus, following the reception of a CANCEL a 200 "OK" needs to be sent to this transaction and later the 487 "Request Terminated" to the SIP INVITE original session. On the traces I see: SIP INVITE (Cseq 1 INVITE) --> … [View More]

2 4

Kamailio license usage
by Alexandru Covalschi 15 Jun '15

15 Jun '15

Maybe it may be an offtopic, but I'm not really into legal issues - so I'm sorry if this message is not fully related to this mailing list. Can I use Kamailio to provide VoIP backend for kind of CRM system in case of SaaS? --- Alexandru Covalschi ABRISS-Solutions VoIP engineer and system administrator phone: +37367398493 web: http://abs-telecom.com/

3 3

Re: [SR-Users] Kamailio number of LCR rules
by Juha Heinanen 15 Jun '15

15 Jun '15

Henry Fernandes writes: > But we didn¹t want to add hundreds of thousands or millions of extra rules > just to deal with this problem. We didn¹t consider that a good > workaround. OK, I got it. Now priorities choose from equally long prefixes instead of all matching prefixes. I'll take a look at the code to check if the latter could be easily added as an option. -- Juha

1 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