Hello Henning,
Yes, I tried to figure out where the problem occurs, but I did not see it.
Our topos-settings at the moment:
modparam("topos", "db_url", DBURL)
modparam("topos", "contact_mode", 0)
modparam("topos", "dialog_expire", 10800)
modparam("topos", "branch_expire", 300)
modparam("topos", "rr_update", 1)
A-Side sends INVITE, we receive 100 and 183.
Then A-Side sends PRACK and we get OK back. Everything ok until now:
B-side sends an UPDATE:
2023/05/01 08:17:45.068664 <InterconnectPartner>:5060 ->
<ourPSTNProxyIP>:5060
UPDATE sip:btpsh-644a237d-1798b-3@<ourPSTNProxyIP> SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
<InterconnectPartner>:5060;branch=z9hG4bKlfgdpmnermnypoptmiyoloido;Role=3;Hpt=8f48_16
Call-ID: <theCall-ID>@<EnddeviceIP>
From:
<sip:<Callee-Number>@<ourPSTNProxyFQDN>>;tag=xjhxhx4q-CC-1002-OFC-94
To:
<sip:<Caller-Number>@<ourPSTNProxyFQDN>;user=phone>;tag=B094B0A03DB661CB
CSeq: 1 UPDATE
Contact:
<sip:<InterconnectPartner>:5060;transport=udp;Hpt=8f48_16;CxtId=3;TRC=ffffffff-ffffffff>
Max-Forwards: 67
Content-Length: 157
Content-Type: application/sdp
v=0
o=- 1128555229 1128555231 IN IP4 <InterconnectPartnerRTP>
s=SBC call
c=IN IP4 <InterconnectPartnerRTP>
t=0 0
m=audio 42990 RTP/AVP 8
a=rtpmap:8 PCMA/8000
a=ptime:20
And our PSTN Proxy sends it directly to the Enddevice instead to the
Registrar Proxy:
2023/05/01 08:17:45.077351 <ourPSTNProxyIP>:5060 -> <EnddeviceIP>:5060
UPDATE
sip:<Caller-Number>@<EnddeviceIP>;uniq=B0EB9A84A278626DA07219E2AE01C SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
<ourPSTNProxyIP>;branch=z9hG4bKcfe.613fa0d159ffec2c6d5d7ac4829b2536.0
Call-ID: <theCall-ID>@<EnddeviceIP>
From:
<sip:<Callee-Number>@<ourPSTNProxyFQDN>>;tag=xjhxhx4q-CC-1002-OFC-94
To: <sip:<Caller-Number>@<ourPSTNProxyFQDN>>;tag=B094B0A03DB661CB
CSeq: 1 UPDATE
Max-Forwards: 66
Content-Length: 166
Content-Type: application/sdp
Contact: <sip:atpsh-644a237d-1798b-3@<ourPSTNProxyIP>>
v=0
o=- 1128555229 1128555231 IN IP4 <ourPSTNProxyIP>
s=SBC call
c=IN IP4 <ourPSTNProxyIP>
t=0 0
m=audio 22518 RTP/AVP 8
a=rtpmap:8 PCMA/8000
a=ptime:20
a=rtpbc:yes
Regards
Stefan
Am 28.04.23 um 17:42 schrieb Henning Westerholt:
Hello,
did you already tried to look e.g. with sngrep on why the UPDATE is
not routed correctly? Just to sort out eventual other issues that are
not caused from the module/code.
Cheers,
Henning
*From:*Stefan <sr.maillists(a)gmail.com>
*Sent:* Donnerstag, 27. April 2023 09:03
*To:* sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org
*Subject:* [SR-Users] Re: TOPOS (5.1.[23]) breaks PRACK
Hi List
I updated to 5.6.4, same behavior.
We have a setup like this: UAC -> kamailio registrar -> kamailio pstn
gw (with topos) -> PSTN.
The UPDATE goes not back from the PSTN to the UAC.
The PSTN GW tries to send it directly to the UAC instead of following
the route back to the registrar.
How did you solve this?
Regards
Stefan
Am 26.04.23 um 14:30 schrieb Stefan:
Hi together
As I understand this should be also fixed in kamailio 5.5.6?
We use also topos but it still breaks UPDATE.
Regards
Stefan
Am 10.05.22 um 20:43 schrieb Henning Westerholt:
Hello,
Yes, its aparently missing in the output. I checked in my
local checkout, its there.
But the version rc0 was set later as the commits in question,
so they should be included.
If the error is still there, re-open the ticket 3090 and add
more information there.
Cheers,
Henning
*From:* George Diamantopoulos <georgediam(a)gmail.com>
<mailto:georgediam@gmail.com>
*Sent:* Tuesday, May 10, 2022 8:06 PM
*To:* Henning Westerholt <hw(a)gilawa.com> <mailto:hw@gilawa.com>
*Cc:* Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
<sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org> <mailto:sr-users@lists.kamailio.org>
*Subject:* Re: [SR-Users] TOPOS (5.1.[23]) breaks PRACK
Hello Henning,
Thanks for the reply. Here's the output, but I don't see
anything relevant to git commits:
version: kamailio 5.6.0-rc0 (x86_64/linux)
flags: USE_TCP, USE_TLS, USE_SCTP, TLS_HOOKS, USE_RAW_SOCKS,
DISABLE_NAGLE, USE_MCAST, DNS_IP_HACK, SHM_MMAP, PKG_MALLOC,
Q_MALLOC, F_MALLOC, TLSF_MALLOC, DBG_SR_MEMORY, USE_FUTEX,
FAST_LOCK-ADAPTIVE_WAIT, USE_DNS_CACHE, USE_DNS_FAILOVER,
USE_NAPTR, USE_DST_BLOCKLIST, HAVE_RESOLV_RES,
TLS_PTHREAD_MUTEX_SHARED
ADAPTIVE_WAIT_LOOPS 1024, MAX_RECV_BUFFER_SIZE 262144,
MAX_URI_SIZE 1024, BUF_SIZE 65535, DEFAULT PKG_SIZE 8MB
poll method support: poll, epoll_lt, epoll_et, sigio_rt, select.
id: unknown
compiled with gcc 10.2.1
BR,
George
On Tue, 10 May 2022 at 18:55, Henning Westerholt
<hw(a)gilawa.com> wrote:
Hello,
it seems to be included, at least in the git branch.
~/repositories/5.6$ git log | egrep "c309122|ceb688b" -A 5
commit c309122864eaa2bfa58253290bed49084ccc9302
Author: Daniel-Constantin Mierla miconda(a)gmail.com
Date: Thu Apr 21 14:28:26 2022 +0200
topos: restore attributes based on direction for early
dialog requests
--
commit ceb688b3d364bb7b8d9f52b7238d560cb4e30b3d
Author: Daniel-Constantin Mierla miconda(a)gmail.com
Date: Thu Apr 21 09:00:09 2022 +0200
topos: use direction for loading invite record for
other early dialog requests
It would be good to double-check with the output of
“kamailio -v”, please paste it here.
Cheers,
Henning
*From:*George Diamantopoulos <georgediam(a)gmail.com>
*Sent:* Tuesday, May 10, 2022 4:43 PM
*To:* Henning Westerholt <hw(a)gilawa.com>
*Cc:* Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
<sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org>
*Subject:* Re: [SR-Users] TOPOS (5.1.[23]) breaks PRACK
Hello again,
I've just tested 5.6.0~rc0+bpo11.20220506004754.1 from
56-nightly, but loose_route() still returns false for
early-dialog UPDATE... Does this build include c309122 and
ceb688b referenced in
https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/issues/3090?
Cheers,
George
On Thu, 7 Apr 2022 at 10:21, George Diamantopoulos
<georgediam(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hello all,
Thanks for the feedback, Henning. There seems to have
already been a ticket about this but it's closed now:
https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/issues/2659
I'm a little confused here. It seems early-dialog
UPDATE should be handled similarly to PRACK, so I
guess maybe a patch like
https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/commit/37830f53b1f21fba5beef5d8e22913c…
would be needed.
However, Daniel has commented in this issue about the
need to do record_route() in config. To quote him:
"The module requires record routing, so if the UPDATE
requires to re-enforce Record-Route, then you have to
do it. [...] I was aware that only NOTIFY requires to
re-enforce Record-Route, but can be also a matter of
UA implementation to want it for other requests."
However, RR reinforcement for NOTIFY only happens (in
the kamailio sample configuration file) in
route[WITHINDLG] only if loose_route() check is
successful. In my case, UPDATEs fail this test, so
control goes directly to "sl_send_reply("404","Not
here");", same as the author of the aforementioned
ticket. Unless Daniel meant one needs to reinforce RR
for PRACKs in order for subsequent UPDATEs to work?
Any thoughts?
BR,
George
On Wed, 6 Apr 2022 at 22:48, Henning Westerholt
<hw(a)gilawa.com> wrote:
Hello,
Thanks for the update. Opening a github issue
about it is probably a good idea.
Cheers,
Henning
--
Henning Westerholt –
https://skalatan.de/blog/
<https://skalatan.de/blog/>
Kamailio services –
https://gilawa.com
<https://gilawa.com/>
*From:* sr-users
<sr-users-bounces(a)lists.kamailio.org> *On Behalf
Of *George Diamantopoulos
*Sent:* Wednesday, April 6, 2022 7:29 PM
*To:* Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
<sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org>
*Subject:* Re: [SR-Users] TOPOS (5.1.[23]) breaks
PRACK
This seems to be a topos issue regardless of
backend, I tried with mariadb as storage and
UPDATE routing fails in the same way as it does
with redis. I'll probably open an issue on Github
about this (early dialog UPDATE broken by topos).
PRACK seems to work fine in my case. Direction of
UPDATE vs PRACK however is different, not sure if
that's important in any way.
BR,
George
On Wed, 6 Apr 2022 at 06:31, George Diamantopoulos
<georgediam(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hello again,
I have confirmed the problem doesn't manifest
without loading the topos module. I'll see if
I can also try a different topos backend this
week to confirm if this is a topos_redis issue
or topos in general.
BR,
George
On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 at 17:11, George
Diamantopoulos <georgediam(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hello Henning,
This is on kamailio 5.5.4.
I'll try with a different backend and
without topos and post the result here as
soon as I find the time, just curious if
anyone has stumbled on this with
topos_redis before. Thanks!
BR,
George
On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 at 15:51, Henning
Westerholt <hw(a)gilawa.com> wrote:
Hello,
please give a recent 5.5.x Kamailio a
try. There was a fix regarding
early-dialog UPDATE handling in topos
committed one year ago.
Cheers,
Henning
--
Henning Westerholt –
https://skalatan.de/blog/
<https://skalatan.de/blog/>
Kamailio services –
https://gilawa.com
<https://gilawa.com/>
*From:* sr-users
<sr-users-bounces(a)lists.kamailio.org>
*On Behalf Of *George Diamantopoulos
*Sent:* Monday, March 21, 2022 11:53 PM
*To:* d.tryba(a)pocos.nl; Kamailio (SER)
- Users Mailing List
<sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org>
*Subject:* Re: [SR-Users] TOPOS
(5.1.[23]) breaks PRACK
Hello all,
Any chance this could be affecting
early-dialog UPDATE methods as well? I
haven't tried with a different backend
(mysql) yet, but loose_route returns
false...
BR,
George
On Fri, 25 May 2018 at 18:00, Daniel
Tryba <d.tryba(a)pocos.nl> wrote:
On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 10:51:37PM
+0200, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
I got a bit of time to look at
this issue, can you try with the patch
from the next commit?
?? -
https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/commit/2a3ca5942291d29de05b14338a36cec…
This off by 1 fix solved the PRACK
issue with redis backend.
_______________________________________________
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
__________________________________________________________
Kamailio - Users Mailing List - Non Commercial Discussions
*sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org
Important: keep the mailing list in the recipients, do not reply only to the
sender!
Edit mailing list options or unsubscribe:
*https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users