Should I still concern about this log info?

IMO, no. If you see no strange logs for the streams of a specific call, _after_ they have been confirmed and kernelized, you should have no worries. The logs you see before the streams of a specific call are confirmed and kernelized are normal behaviour; try decreasing the rtpengine's log level to reduce the I/O log operations.

Regards,
Stefan

On Sat, Dec 26, 2015 at 12:33 PM, Zodiac <mozillafire@bupt.edu.cn> wrote:
Hello, friend.

Actually I set my rtpengine on a physical machine before I sent you my first reply to you. Problem still exists.

Now I changed some iptables rules and I can get info from “cat list” under the table 0. It prints these:

       src inet4 10.109.247.87:30058
       dst inet4 10.205.42.195:56220
    stats:                14964 bytes,                   87 packets,                    0 errors
        RTP payload type   0:                    0 bytes,                    0 packets
        RTP payload type   3:                    0 bytes,                    0 packets
        RTP payload type   8:                    0 bytes,                    0 packets
        RTP payload type   9:                    0 bytes,                    0 packets
        RTP payload type 101:                    0 bytes,                    0 packets
        RTP payload type 105:                    0 bytes,                    0 packets
        RTP payload type 106:                    0 bytes,                    0 packets
       src inet4 10.109.247.87:30066
       dst inet4 10.205.42.195:55744
    stats:                77399 bytes,                   68 packets,                    0 errors
        RTP payload type  96:                    0 bytes,                    0 packets
       src inet4 10.109.247.87:30008
       dst inet4 10.205.42.195:33875
    stats:                14448 bytes,                   84 packets,                    0 errors
        RTP payload type   0:                    0 bytes,                    0 packets
        RTP payload type   3:                    0 bytes,                    0 packets
        RTP payload type   8:                    0 bytes,                    0 packets
        RTP payload type   9:                    0 bytes,                    0 packets
        RTP payload type  96:                    0 bytes,                    0 packets
        RTP payload type  97:                    0 bytes,                    0 packets
        RTP payload type  98:                    0 bytes,                    0 packets
        RTP payload type  99:                    0 bytes,                    0 packets
        RTP payload type 101:                    0 bytes,                    0 packets
        RTP payload type 102:                    0 bytes,                    0 packets
        RTP payload type 103:                    0 bytes,                    0 packets
        RTP payload type 105:                    0 bytes,                    0 packets
        RTP payload type 106:                    0 bytes,                    0 packets
        RTP payload type 107:                    0 bytes,                    0 packets
        RTP payload type 108:                    0 bytes,                    0 packets
        RTP payload type 109:                    0 bytes,                    0 packets
       src inet4 10.109.247.87:30042
       dst inet4 10.205.42.195:39177
    stats:                34105 bytes,                   34 packets,                    0 errors
        RTP payload type  96:                    0 bytes,                    0 packets
        RTP payload type  97:                    0 bytes,                    0 packets
        RTP payload type 102:                    0 bytes,                    0 packets

But I still got info like this:


Dec 26 18:29:30 localhost rtpengine[2946]: [79049NzkxNmM1ZjAyMDMxYTgyYTI1NzBmNzQxN2YyOWIzNGU port 30383] More than 30 duplicate packets detected, dropping packet to avoid potential loop
Dec 26 18:29:30 localhost rtpengine[2946]: [79049NzkxNmM1ZjAyMDMxYTgyYTI1NzBmNzQxN2YyOWIzNGU port 30403] More than 30 duplicate packets detected, dropping packet to avoid potential loop
Dec 26 18:29:31 localhost rtpengine[2946]: [79049NzkxNmM1ZjAyMDMxYTgyYTI1NzBmNzQxN2YyOWIzNGU port 30375] More than 30 duplicate packets detected, dropping packet to avoid potential loop
Dec 26 18:29:32 localhost rtpengine[2946]: [79049NzkxNmM1ZjAyMDMxYTgyYTI1NzBmNzQxN2YyOWIzNGU port 30375] More than 30 duplicate packets detected, dropping packet to avoid potential loop
Dec 26 18:29:34 localhost rtpengine[2946]: [79049NzkxNmM1ZjAyMDMxYTgyYTI1NzBmNzQxN2YyOWIzNGU port 30382] Confirmed peer address as 10.205.42.195:47974
Dec 26 18:29:34 localhost rtpengine[2946]: [79049NzkxNmM1ZjAyMDMxYTgyYTI1NzBmNzQxN2YyOWIzNGU port 30342] Confirmed peer address as 10.205.42.195:64642
Dec 26 18:29:34 localhost rtpengine[2946]: [79049NzkxNmM1ZjAyMDMxYTgyYTI1NzBmNzQxN2YyOWIzNGU port 30342] Kernelizing media stream: 10.205.42.195:64642
Dec 26 18:29:34 localhost rtpengine[2946]: [79049NzkxNmM1ZjAyMDMxYTgyYTI1NzBmNzQxN2YyOWIzNGU port 30402] Confirmed peer address as 10.205.42.195:48421
Dec 26 18:29:34 localhost rtpengine[2946]: [79049NzkxNmM1ZjAyMDMxYTgyYTI1NzBmNzQxN2YyOWIzNGU port 30382] Kernelizing media stream: 10.205.42.195:47974
Dec 26 18:29:34 localhost rtpengine[2946]: [79049NzkxNmM1ZjAyMDMxYTgyYTI1NzBmNzQxN2YyOWIzNGU port 30374] Confirmed peer address as 10.205.42.195:58668
Dec 26 18:29:34 localhost rtpengine[2946]: [79049NzkxNmM1ZjAyMDMxYTgyYTI1NzBmNzQxN2YyOWIzNGU port 30374] Kernelizing media stream: 10.205.42.195:58668
Dec 26 18:29:34 localhost rtpengine[2946]: [79049NzkxNmM1ZjAyMDMxYTgyYTI1NzBmNzQxN2YyOWIzNGU port 30402] Kernelizing media stream: 10.205.42.195:48421
Dec 26 18:29:34 localhost rtpengine[2946]: [79049NzkxNmM1ZjAyMDMxYTgyYTI1NzBmNzQxN2YyOWIzNGU port 30375] Confirmed peer address as 10.205.42.195:58669
Dec 26 18:29:34 localhost rtpengine[2946]: [79049NzkxNmM1ZjAyMDMxYTgyYTI1NzBmNzQxN2YyOWIzNGU port 30375] More than 30 duplicate packets detected, dropping packet to avoid potential loop
Dec 26 18:29:34 localhost rtpengine[2946]: [79049NzkxNmM1ZjAyMDMxYTgyYTI1NzBmNzQxN2YyOWIzNGU port 30343] Confirmed peer address as 10.205.42.195:64643
Dec 26 18:29:34 localhost rtpengine[2946]: [79049NzkxNmM1ZjAyMDMxYTgyYTI1NzBmNzQxN2YyOWIzNGU port 30343] More than 30 duplicate packets detected, dropping packet to avoid potential loop
Dec 26 18:29:35 localhost rtpengine[2946]: [79049NzkxNmM1ZjAyMDMxYTgyYTI1NzBmNzQxN2YyOWIzNGU port 30375] More than 30 duplicate packets detected, dropping packet to avoid potential loop
Dec 26 18:29:35 localhost rtpengine[2946]: [79049NzkxNmM1ZjAyMDMxYTgyYTI1NzBmNzQxN2YyOWIzNGU port 30403] Confirmed peer address as 10.205.42.195:36390
Dec 26 18:29:35 localhost rtpengine[2946]: [79049NzkxNmM1ZjAyMDMxYTgyYTI1NzBmNzQxN2YyOWIzNGU port 30383] Confirmed peer address as 10.205.42.195:34933

The video call is great without much delay or noise. So any reasons else? Should I still concern about this log info?


在 2015年12月26日，03:32，Mititelu Stefan <fanx07@gmail.com> 写道：

1.In fact I am not quite sure about what you mean for the first question. I am running the rtpengine daemon downloaded from github, sip wise/rtpengine.
   What does 'dpkg -l | grep rtp' show?
 
2.There is nothing prompt on command cat /proc/rtpengine/0/list. The file is 0 bytes and empty.
  That means your streams are not kernelized and all the traffic passes through user space. I have never run rtpengine software on a virtual machine so I don't know if it should kernelize the streams in this case; you could try it. On real hardware, it should. Thus you should get rid of those errors.
   Check point '1.' and make sure that you have the necessary packages needed for kernelizing the streams referred in [1] (i.e. ngcp-rtpengine-kernel-dkms, ngcp-rtpengine-iptables) along with the rtpengine daemon (ngcp-rtpengine-daemon); those should be the minimum packages needed. Grep the README for "in-kernel" keyword for more info.
 
3.Our kamailio is using loose route.
  I was asking about "strict source" form README [1]. Nothing related to kamailio's 'lr=' parameter (if that is what you meant). However your problem is at point 2.

Regards,
_______________________________________________
SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list
sr-users@lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users

------------------------------------
北京邮电大学网络技术研究院
网络与交换技术国家重点实验室
田军
------------------------------------


_______________________________________________
SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list
sr-users@lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users