sr-users

sr-users@lists.kamailio.org

11 participants
37462 discussions

Set TTL for skipped NAPTR record due to all IPs are unreachable
by Mathias Schneuwly 11 Mar '25

11 Mar '25

Hi I've a question regarding skipped NAPTR records. In our setup, we are using quite big DNS TTLs (860400). If there is an issue on the target server, the NAPTR record is marked as skipped "Mark to skip _sips._tcp.... NAPTR record due to all IPs are unreachable" until the TTL is expired. Since our TTLs are so big, the destination is no longer reachable during this time, even if the server is reachable again. I've seen that I can set "dns_cache_max_ttl" to reduce the time, but this is of course for all cached DNS records. Is there a way to set how long a NAPTR record is skipped or disable the feature at all? Or maybe skip the NAPTR only for the current dialog or transaction? Thanks for your help Best regards Mathias

2 7

Kamailio v6.0.1 Released
by Daniel-Constantin Mierla 10 Mar '25

10 Mar '25

Hello, Kamailio SIP Server v6.0.1 stable release is out. This is a maintenance release of the latest stable branch, 6.0, that includes fixes since the release of v6.0.1. There is no change to database schema or configuration language structure that you have to do on previous installations of v6.0.x. Deployments running previous v6.0.x versions are strongly recommended to be upgraded to v6.0.1. For more details about version 6.0.1 (including links and guidelines to download the tarball or from GIT repository), visit: * https://www.kamailio.org/w/2025/03/kamailio-v6-0-1-released/ RPM, Debian/Ubuntu packages will be available soon as well. Many thanks to all contributing and using Kamailio! Cheers, Daniel -- Daniel-Constantin Mierla (@ asipto.com) twitter.com/miconda -- linkedin.com/in/miconda Kamailio Consultancy, Training and Development Services -- asipto.com Kamailio Advanced Training, March 24-28, 2025 -- asipto.com Kamailio World Conference, May 12-13, 2025, Berlin -- kamailioworld.com

1 0

Releasing v6.0.1
by Daniel-Constantin Mierla 10 Mar '25

10 Mar '25

Hello, I am considering to release Kamailio v6.0.1 (out of branch 60) on Monday, March 10, 2025. If anyone is aware of issues not yet on the bug tracker, report them there asap in order to have a better chance to be fixed. Cheers, Daniel -- Daniel-Constantin Mierla (@ asipto.com) twitter.com/miconda -- linkedin.com/in/miconda Kamailio Consultancy, Training and Development Services -- asipto.com Kamailio Advanced Training, March 24-28, 2025 -- asipto.com Kamailio World Conference, May 12-13, 2025, Berlin -- kamailioworld.com

1 1

Kamailio with Presence Module and Publishing by Asterisk
by Ludovic GRANGE 05 Mar '25

05 Mar '25

Hi, I'm having a problem managing the presence between Kamailio and Asterisk. I have configured Kamailio as a presence server. Asterisk sends presence information via publishing sip request. My softphone which uses Kamailio as a presence server and as a proxy has 2 BLFs configured. On a first call, the presence status is displayed on the 2 keys. But for the 2nd call, only the extension receiving the call has its status changed on the BLF. Via sngrep, the Publishing requests arrive on Kamailio but the DB is not updated because the e-tag does not match. If I wait until the end of the expiry period (60s for the test), the DB is flushed and the 1st call works again. Could you please help me? Thank you Translated with DeepL.com (free version) -- Bien cordialement, Bande verticale Prosoluce Ludovic Grange Administrateur systèmes & réseaux Picto mailludovic.grange(a)prosoluce.fr <mailto:ludovic.grange@prosoluce.fr> Picto tél 05 31 61 62 25 <tel:+33531616225> Picto webwww.prosoluce.fr <https://www.prosoluce.fr> Logo Prosoluce

3 5

Best practices for proxy protocol and TLS offloading
by Alex Balashov 04 Mar '25

04 Mar '25

Hello, I am converting a Kamailio WSS/TLS gateway to pure TCP, with an external HAProxy handling TLS termination and emitting the proxied connection as plain TCP. I am using the PROXYv2 protocol, with `tcp_accept_haproxy=yes`, to convey the upstream network and transport-layer reachability info into Kamailio. I am trying to figure out best practices for mapping the contacts on those connections to the proxied connections themselves. For registrations, tcp_force_alias() (with `tcp_accept_aliases=yes`) works well, and inbound calls go to the right place. However, I'm not quite sure what to do with other flows, such as, for example, in-dialog requests on inbound calls going to the TLS endpoints. There are obviously a lot of possibilities, all or most of which I've tinkered with. These generally involve either {s.replace}-ing `;transport=tls` with `;transport=tcp` in the contacts received from the client, or using the traditional `nathelper` contact alias / RURI alias bag of tricks. However, I don't like the former solution because it leads to a non-compliant R-URI going to the endpoint (it's not the ;transport it sent in its contact), and I don't like the latter because it seems like there are too many moving parts. When tcp_force_alias() works so well for registrations, there must be some small linchpin I'm missing for normal request-reply flows. What is it? Thanks in advance! -- Alex -- Alex Balashov Principal Consultant Evariste Systems LLC Web: https://evaristesys.com Tel: +1-706-510-6800

2 4

Topos Module Questions
by David Tek 04 Mar '25

04 Mar '25

Hello, I am trying to configure the Topos module and have some questions. # topos:msg-outgoing vs topos:msg-sending https://www.kamailio.org/docs/modules/5.8.x/modules/topos.html#topos.e.msg_… I am trying to understand the difference between these two event routes(beyond the content of the SIP message ). I notice that both are invoked when OPTIONS are generated by the local Kamailio server but only msg-sending is invoked for messages transiting the Kamailio( ie proxied, not locally generated). Is there some difference in how these event_routers are invoked beyond the content of the SIP message? # tops -> requests/replies When I am in event_route[topos:msg-sending] { and invoke 'drop', does this apply to the current message or does it apply to the transaction? I have a Kamailio node with devices on either side. Let's call side A untrusted and side B trusted. I want TOPOS happening against the untrusted device but not the trusted device. I have found that when I invoke 'drop' on a request coming from A to B, it disables TOPOS not only on that packet, but also the reply comes from B back to A, TOPOS isn't applied when the reply exits Kamailio towards A. So if I call 'drop' on the request coming from A to B, the reply coming from B to A has no TOPOS applied. How do I get TOPOS applied to all traffic facing a particular device while leaving that traffic un-stripped when the same traffic is interacting with other devices that are trusted? Thanks, David

2 2

Torso Sex Toy for Men & Women
by feifeiwangf＠uusextoy.com 04 Mar '25

04 Mar '25

The sex doll torso is a very light mini sex doll. Usually, its weight is 4kg to 20kg. These sex doll torsos are made of TPE or silicone. Of course, they are all very safe materials. https://www.sextorso.com/

3 2

SHA-256 HASH
by Social Boh 04 Mar '25

04 Mar '25

Hello list, is it possible create a user using sha-256 hash? My goal is Asterisk PBX Register ----- sha-256 digest authentication -> Kamailio Regards -- --- I'm SoCIaL, MayBe

2 3

KEMI logging function name output
by Dmitry Sytchev 28 Feb '25

28 Feb '25

Hi all! By default logging from KEMI with KSR.log() is prefixed with something like this: <core> [core/kemi.c:152]: sr_kemi_core_log(): Can we somehow disable this not to print it every time with every message? Thanks! [image: image.png] -- Best regards, Dmitry Sytchev

2 2

SNMP thresholds
by Sergio Charrua 27 Feb '25

27 Feb '25

Hi all! we have set SNMP stats on our production server. The server is only receiving 1% of the calls, less than 1 CAPS, but we are receiving some SNMP alarms that are a bit weird to us. [image: image.png] This is an example. As we were unsure about the thresholds to be set for Msg Queue, we set Minor to 20 and Major to 100, which resulted in some alarms when we exceeded the Major threshold. From our understanding, the Max Major MSG Queue threshold was 2176, which obviously generated an alarm. But we can't understand why when a Msg Queue depth of 1280 generated an Minor Threshold alarm when the threshold is 20!! Why not generate a Major Threshold alarm instead, as it did reach the Major Threshold ? Also, does anyone have a clue on how to estimate Major and Minor thresholds? How does this Msg Queue handler work? Is it Kamailio's level or on OS/Kernel level that it gets the statistics from? Apart from the official Kamailio SNMPStats docs, any doc or article one would share? greatly appreciated. ( I so much hate SNMP!!! :) ) Atenciosamente / Kind Regards / Cordialement / Un saludo, *Sérgio Charrua*

1 0

← Newer
1
...
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
...
3747
Older →

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