Re: [SR-Users] Several BYEs conveying Kamailio

11 Jul 2010

      I think my script is pretty much standard one:

route{
        if (!mf_process_maxfwd_header("10")) {
                sl_send_reply("483","Too Many Hops");
                exit;
        };

        if (msg:len >= 2048 ) {
                sl_send_reply("513", "Message too big");
                exit;
        };

        if (!method=="REGISTER")
        record_route();
        else    {
                sl_send_reply("488","Not Acceptable Here");
                exit;
                }

        if (loose_route()) {
                if (is_method("BYE"))
                {
                #Account BYE transaction
                setflag(2);
                }
                # mark routing logic in request
                append_hf("P-hint: rr-enforced\r\n");
                route(1);
        };

        if (is_method("INVITE")) {
                if (allow_source_address("1"))  {
                        if (from_uri=~"sip:112233@.*") {
                                $var(origin) = "from_sip1";
                                                       }
                        else if (from_uri=~"sip:44.*@.*") {
                                $var(origin) = "from_sip2";
                                                     }
                        else {
                                $var(origin) = "from_sip3";
                             }
                                                }
                else if (allow_source_address("2"))  {
                        $var(origin) = "from_pstn1";
                                                }
                else                            {
                        sl_send_reply("403", "Forbidden");
                        exit;
                                                };
                if (!load_gws("$var(origin)")) {
                                sl_send_reply("503", "Unable to load gateways");
                                exit;
                                 }
                if (!next_gw()) {
                                sl_send_reply("503", "Unable to find a
gateway");
                                exit;
                                }
                setflag(2);
                setflag(3);
                route(1);
                exit;
        };

        t_check_trans();

        if (!uri==myself) {
                sl_send_reply("488","Not Acceptable Here");
                exit;
                }

        if (uri==myself) {
                route(1);
                exit;
        };

        # requests for my domain
        if ($rU==NULL) {
                # request with no Username in RURI
                sl_send_reply("484","Address Incomplete");
                exit;
        };		

        if (is_method("CANCEL"))
        {
                if (t_check_trans())
                t_relay();
                exit;
        };

t_release();
}

route[1] {
        t_on_reply("1");
        t_on_failure("11");
        if (!t_relay()) {
                sl_reply_error();
        };
        exit;
}

onreply_route[1] {
        if(!t_check_trans()) {
                drop;
        }
        setflag(2);
        }

######################
# "default" failover #
######################
failure_route[11] {
        # In case of failure, send it to an alternative route:
        if (t_check_status("415|408|404|5[0-9][0-9]")) {
        if (!next_gw()) {
                        t_reply("503", "Service not available, no more
gateways");
                        exit;
                        }
        else    {
                t_on_failure("11");
                setflag(2);
                t_relay();
                }
        exit;
                                                   }
}

Could sb tell me where i made a mistake/how to modify the script to
drop BYEs I've mentioned.

Thanks in advance,
Maciej

2010/7/10 Maciej Bylica <mbsip@gazeta.pl>:
...
Thanks
So does it mean that placing t_check_trans() inside loose_route() part
of the script should solve my issue?
Of course i do have record_route() for all non-REGISTER messages.
Thx,
Maciej.
2010/7/9 Alex Balashov <abalashov@evaristesys.com>:
...
If the BYEs are genuine retransmissions, they should be dampened using
t_check_trans() before they are processed by TM and therefore ACC.
On 07/09/2010 08:03 AM, Maciej Bylica wrote:
...
Dear ALL,
I have configured Kamailio 1.5 from svn with radius (radiusclient-ng)
support for acc.
All seem to work okay, except one thing.
 From time to time I am receiving following radius error (debug from
radius server on different ip)
Fri Jul  9 12:22:58 2010 : Error: rlm_sql (sql): Couldn't update SQL
accounting STOP record - Column 'AcctStartTime' cannot be null
Fri Jul  9 12:23:08 2010 : Error: rlm_sql (sql): Couldn't update SQL
accounting STOP record - Column 'AcctStartTime' cannot be null
Fri Jul  9 12:23:18 2010 : Error: rlm_sql (sql): Couldn't update SQL
accounting STOP record - Column 'AcctStartTime' cannot be null
A few lines from radiusclient.conf
# time to wait for a reply from the RADIUS server
radius_timeout  10
# resend request this many times before trying the next server
radius_retries  3
After closer look at this, it turned out that there is one START
request and four STOPs with the same CallID (Acct-Session-Id).
START and first STOP are treated as a pair, the next ones are odd.
Taking about sip i do have following scenario:
MGW(1)---Kamailio(2)---SIP_Provider(SER based)(3)
The call flow that generate aforemtioned errors looks like below
(debug on kamailio)
1 - (2) is receiving INVITE from (3)
2 - (2) is sending Giving a Try to (3)
3 - (2) is sending INVITE to (1)
4 - (2) is receiving Trying from (1)
5 - (2) is receiving Ringing from (1)
6 - (2) is receiving OK from (1)
7 - (2) is sending OK to (3)
8 - (2) is receiving ACK from (3)
9 - (2) is sending ACK to (1)
---- call----
10 - (2) is receiving BYE from (1) (tearing down from (1) side, STOP
radius request is generated)
11 - (2) is sending BYE to (3)
12 - (2) is receiving BYE from (3) (second STOP is generated,
radius_retries  3, radius_timeout  10)
13 - (2) is sending BYE to (1)
14 - (2) is receiving OK from (1)
15 - (2) is sending OK to (3)
16 - (2) is receiving OK to (3)
17 - (2) is sending OK to (1)
For sure there is sth wrong with SIP_Provider but how Kamilio should
behave is such situation.
Should second BYE (p.12) with the same callid as in p.10 be continued with
p.13?
Thanks in advance,
Maciej.
_______________________________________________
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
--
Alex Balashov - Principal
Evariste Systems LLC
1170 Peachtree Street
12th Floor, Suite 1200
Atlanta, GA 30309
Tel: +1-678-954-0670
Fax: +1-404-961-1892
Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/
_______________________________________________
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