30 Jun
2018
30 Jun
'18
7:12 p.m.
With a more verbose kamailio (not sure if it helps):
```3(32) DEBUG: <core> [core/udp_server.c:491]: udp_rcv_loop():
received on udp socket: (106/100/520) [[KDMQ
sip:notification_peer@10.0.0.102:5060 SIP/2.0 0D 0A Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
10.0.0.49;branch=z9hG4bK361]]
3(32) DEBUG: <core> [core/parser/msg_parser.c:604]: parse_msg(): SIP Request:
3(32) DEBUG: <core> [core/parser/msg_parser.c:606]: parse_msg():
method: <KDMQ>
3(32) DEBUG: <core> [core/parser/msg_parser.c:608]: parse_msg():
uri: <sip:notification_peer@10.0.0.102:5060>
3(32) DEBUG: <core> [core/parser/msg_parser.c:610]: parse_msg():
version: <SIP/2.0>
3(32) DEBUG: <core> [core/parser/parse_via.c:1303]:
parse_via_param(): Found param type 232, <branch> =
<z9hG4bK3618.4ae6e325000000000000000000000000.0>; state=16
3(32) DEBUG: <core> [core/parser/parse_via.c:2639]: parse_via(): end
of header reached, state=5
3(32) DEBUG: <core> [core/parser/msg_parser.c:492]: parse_headers():
Via found, flags=2
3(32) DEBUG: <core> [core/parser/msg_parser.c:494]: parse_headers():
this is the first via
3(32) DEBUG: <core> [core/parser/parse_addr_spec.c:864]:
parse_addr_spec(): end of header reached, state=10
3(32) DEBUG: <core> [core/parser/msg_parser.c:171]: get_hdr_field():
<To> [43]; uri=[sip:notification_peer@10.0.0.102:5060]
3(32) DEBUG: <core> [core/parser/msg_parser.c:172]: get_hdr_field():
to body [<sip:notification_peer@10.0.0.102:5060>
], to tag []
3(32) DEBUG: <core> [core/parser/msg_parser.c:152]: get_hdr_field():
cseq <CSeq>: <10> <KDMQ>
3(32) DEBUG: <core> [core/receive.c:232]: receive_msg(): --- received
sip message - request - call-id: [3d4783ff3ccce81f-64(a)10.0.0.49] -
cseq: [10 KDMQ]
3(32) DEBUG: <core> [core/receive.c:287]: receive_msg(): preparing to
run routing scripts...
3(32) DEBUG: <core> [core/parser/msg_parser.c:183]: get_hdr_field():
content_length=73
3(32) DEBUG: <core> [core/parser/msg_parser.c:89]: get_hdr_field():
found end of header
3(32) DEBUG: <core> [core/receive.c:344]: receive_msg():
request-route executed in: 203 usec
3(32) DEBUG: <core> [core/usr_avp.c:636]: destroy_avp_list():
destroying list (nil)
3(32) DEBUG: <core> [core/usr_avp.c:636]: destroy_avp_list():
destroying list (nil)
3(32) DEBUG: <core> [core/usr_avp.c:636]: destroy_avp_list():
destroying list (nil)
3(32) DEBUG: <core> [core/usr_avp.c:636]: destroy_avp_list():
destroying list (nil)
3(32) DEBUG: <core> [core/usr_avp.c:636]: destroy_avp_list():
destroying list (nil)
3(32) DEBUG: <core> [core/usr_avp.c:636]: destroy_avp_list():
destroying list (nil)
3(32) DEBUG: <core> [core/xavp.c:495]: xavp_destroy_list():
destroying xavp list (nil)
3(32) DEBUG: <core> [core/receive.c:447]: receive_msg(): cleaning up
```
...
```
9(38) DEBUG: <core> [core/receive.c:232]: receive_msg(): --- received
sip message - request - call-id: [0eb7f0c66155bdad-46(a)10.0.0.102] -
cseq: [10 KDMQ]
9(38) DEBUG: <core> [core/receive.c:287]: receive_msg(): preparing to
run routing scripts...
9(38) DEBUG: <core> [core/parser/msg_parser.c:183]: get_hdr_field():
content_length=71
9(38) DEBUG: <core> [core/parser/msg_parser.c:89]: get_hdr_field():
found end of header
9(38) DEBUG: <core> [core/receive.c:344]: receive_msg():
request-route executed in: 102 usec
9(38) DEBUG: <core> [core/usr_avp.c:636]: destroy_avp_list():
destroying list (nil)
9(38) DEBUG: <core> [core/usr_avp.c:636]: destroy_avp_list():
destroying list (nil)
9(38) DEBUG: <core> [core/usr_avp.c:636]: destroy_avp_list():
destroying list (nil)
9(38) DEBUG: <core> [core/usr_avp.c:636]: destroy_avp_list():
destroying list (nil)
9(38) DEBUG: <core> [core/usr_avp.c:636]: destroy_avp_list():
destroying list (nil)
9(38) DEBUG: <core> [core/usr_avp.c:636]: destroy_avp_list():
destroying list (nil)
9(38) DEBUG: <core> [core/xavp.c:495]: xavp_destroy_list():
destroying xavp list (nil)
9(38) DEBUG: <core> [core/receive.c:447]: receive_msg(): cleaning up
17(46) DEBUG: tm [t_reply.c:1262]: t_should_relay_response():
->>>>>>>>> T_code=0, new_code=408
17(46) DEBUG: tm [t_reply.c:2092]: local_reply(): branch=0, save=0, winner=0
17(46) DEBUG: tm [t_reply.c:2131]: local_reply(): local transaction
completed 408/0 (totag retr: 0/1024)
17(46) DEBUG: tm [t_hooks.c:258]: run_trans_callbacks_internal(): DBG:
trans=0x7f9093424300, callback type 1024, id 0 entered
17(46) DEBUG: dmq [dmq_funcs.c:61]: dmq_tm_callback(): dmq_tm_callback start
17(46) DEBUG: dmq [notification_peer.c:586]:
notification_resp_callback_f(): notification_callback_f triggered
[0xffffffffffffffff 408 (nil)]
17(46) ERROR: dmq [notification_peer.c:596]:
notification_resp_callback_f(): deleting server sip:127.0.0.1:5060
because of failed request
17(46) ERROR: dmq [notification_peer.c:599]:
notification_resp_callback_f(): not deleting notification_peer
17(46) DEBUG: dmq [dmq_funcs.c:69]: dmq_tm_callback(): dmq_tm_callback done
```
--
Aleksandar Sosic
mail: alex.sosic(a)evosip.cloud
On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 8:32 AM Aleksandar Sosic
<alex.sosic(a)evosip.cloud> wrote:
Hi Charles,
The notification address is set to localhost only for the server node
because I have a mutual architecture and don't know which nodes are up
and with which IPs. There could be a possibility that there are no
other kamailio nodes beside the dmq-server.
I'm pretty sure this configuration was working some time ago, We've
since then changed some configuration but no dmq configuration was
changed as I'm aware of. The other thing that changes is the kamailio
version. I will try to use a stable version and retry.
I've tried a capture with tshark and on the local interface I've got:
``` 3 0.116690338 10.0.0.101 ? 127.0.0.1 SIP 557 Unknown
request: KDMQ sip:notification_peer@127.0.0.1:5060 | (text/plain)
4 0.116771925 10.0.0.101 ? 127.0.0.1 SIP 557 Unknown request:
KDMQ sip:notification_peer@127.0.0.1:5060 | (text/plain)
5 1.116940867 10.0.0.101 ? 127.0.0.1 SIP 557 Unknown request:
KDMQ sip:notification_peer@127.0.0.1:5060 | (text/plain)
6 3.116729798 10.0.0.101 ? 127.0.0.1 SIP 557 Unknown request:
KDMQ sip:notification_peer@127.0.0.1:5060 | (text/plain)
7 4.116611072 10.0.0.101 ? 127.0.0.1 SIP 557 Unknown request:
KDMQ sip:notification_peer@127.0.0.1:5060 | (text/plain)
8 7.116677754 10.0.0.101 ? 127.0.0.1 SIP 557 Unknown request:
KDMQ sip:notification_peer@127.0.0.1:5060 | (text/plain)
9 8.116711422 10.0.0.101 ? 127.0.0.1 SIP 557 Unknown request:
KDMQ sip:notification_peer@127.0.0.1:5060 | (text/plain)
```
On the public interface there are packets arriving from the other two
kamailio nodes:
```
221 218.212276413 10.0.0.50 ? 172.22.5.102 SIP 561 Unknown request:
KDMQ sip:notification_peer@10.0.0.102:5060 | (text/plain)
222 219.212053642 10.0.0.50 ? 172.22.5.102 SIP 561 Unknown request:
KDMQ sip:notification_peer@10.0.0.102:5060 | (text/plain)
223 219.955864183 10.0.0.49 ? 172.22.5.102 SIP 562 Unknown request:
KDMQ sip:notification_peer@10.0.0.102:5060 | (text/plain)
224 220.955964403 10.0.0.49 ? 172.22.5.102 SIP 562 Unknown request:
KDMQ sip:notification_peer@10.0.0.102:5060 | (text/plain)
```
But in the logs of all three kamailio nodes I've got:
```
9(64) ERROR: dmq [notification_peer.c:596]:
notification_resp_callback_f(): deleting server sip:10.0.0.102:5060
because of failed request
9(64) ERROR: dmq [notification_peer.c:599]:
notification_resp_callback_f(): not deleting notification_peer
```
Also no luck with the dmq.list_nodes.
Kind regards and thank you for your time, I really appreciate it!
--
Aleksandar Sosic
mail: alex.sosic(a)evosip.cloudOn Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 6:27 PM Charles
Chance <charles.chance(a)sipcentric.com> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Is there anything preventing the messages from reaching Kamailio? If you have a pcap
from one of the servers we may be able to see what’s happening.
>
> Also, you have the notification address set to localhost - this should instead point
to one of the other nodes.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Charles