Guys, I am not sure in which world to expect to get an answer to this so I am sending this to both SIPP and SR-User mailing lists.
I am trying to get an SIPP end-point to register with a kamailio proxy. I do this by sending the REGISTER from the SIPP end-point, which is successfully responded to by kamailio with a 200 OK. No problems there.
The problem is then with sending an INVITE from kamailio to the SIPP instance. This is where the problems arise.
1) If I include the expected INVITE in the same xml scenario file as the REGISTER/200, then SIPP will complain about the INVITE as it will have a different Call-ID from the REGISTER method. I have a hunt around the forums and this was acknowledged as an issue but as far as I can see this has not been fixed/implemented. The following link will take you to a proposed fix for this issue.
http://sipp.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/Patches#Pre.2FPost_scenarios
Does anyone know what the current state of play is for this proposed patch or if there is another way to get around this issue?
2) I tried to REGISTER the SIPP endpoint in a single xml scenario file with kamailio. This works as per usual. I then killed the SIPP instance and ran a new SIPP script listening on the same port before trying to send the INVITE to it. I expected this to work as the SIPP scenarios (both sending REGISTER and expecting INVITE) listened on the same port. However, the INVITE was not received by the SIPP endpoint. Can anyone think of a reason for this?
If any further info is required then please let me know. I have spent quite a bit of time on this and its an itch that needs scratched.
Thanks in advance, Steve.
Am 04.01.2011 08:59, schrieb Stephen McVarnock:
- I tried to REGISTER the SIPP endpoint in a single xml scenario file
with kamailio. This works as per usual. I then killed the SIPP instance and ran a new SIPP script listening on the same port before trying to send the INVITE to it. I expected this to work as the SIPP scenarios (both sending REGISTER and expecting INVITE) listened on the same port. However, the INVITE was not received by the SIPP endpoint. Can anyone think of a reason for this?
That should work - if you use UDP and the time interval between REGISTER and INVITE is small (<30 seconds to avoid NAT/FW issues).
Of course, it also depends if sipp is behind NAT/FW and the Contact used by sipp during REGISTER is correct. If there is some kind of NAT/FW then you should use fix_nated_register() before save().
http://www.kamailio.org/docs/modules/3.0.x/modules_k/nathelper.html#id261085... Read carefully and set the mentioned module parameters!
regards Klaus
Hey guys
Here is what I typically do in a scenario like this:
SIPp instance no 1 (port x): handles registrations but will register with NOT with port X but with port Y. SIPp instance no 2 (port y): handles the "other" traffic, such as INVITE, MESSAGE whatever.
The reason for this is that when I do load testing, I cannot go off and kill my REGISTER SIPp instance plus I don't want to have to deal with timing issues etc (I haven't noticed that though). Of course, this assumes there is no NAT between you and the server, which in our test lab, we dont have (unless we are explicitly testing NAT scenarios).
Anyway, just another idea.
/Jonas
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 6:14 AM, Klaus Darilion klaus.mailinglists@pernau.at wrote:
Am 04.01.2011 08:59, schrieb Stephen McVarnock:
- I tried to REGISTER the SIPP endpoint in a single xml scenario file
with kamailio. This works as per usual. I then killed the SIPP instance and ran a new SIPP script listening on the same port before trying to send the INVITE to it. I expected this to work as the SIPP scenarios (both sending REGISTER and expecting INVITE) listened on the same port. However, the INVITE was not received by the SIPP endpoint. Can anyone think of a reason for this?
That should work - if you use UDP and the time interval between REGISTER and INVITE is small (<30 seconds to avoid NAT/FW issues).
Of course, it also depends if sipp is behind NAT/FW and the Contact used by sipp during REGISTER is correct. If there is some kind of NAT/FW then you should use fix_nated_register() before save().
http://www.kamailio.org/docs/modules/3.0.x/modules_k/nathelper.html#id261085... Read carefully and set the mentioned module parameters!
regards Klaus
Learn how Oracle Real Application Clusters (RAC) One Node allows customers to consolidate database storage, standardize their database environment, and, should the need arise, upgrade to a full multi-node Oracle RAC database without downtime or disruption http://p.sf.net/sfu/oracle-sfdevnl _______________________________________________ Sipp-users mailing list Sipp-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sipp-users
Klaus, Jonas, cheers for the helpful responses - much appreciated.
Thanks again.
Steve.
Hey guys
Here is what I typically do in a scenario like this:
SIPp instance no 1 (port x): handles registrations but will register with NOT with port X but with port Y. SIPp instance no 2 (port y): handles the "other" traffic, such as INVITE, MESSAGE whatever.
The reason for this is that when I do load testing, I cannot go off and kill my REGISTER SIPp instance plus I don't want to have to deal with timing issues etc (I haven't noticed that though). Of course, this assumes there is no NAT between you and the server, which in our test lab, we dont have (unless we are explicitly testing NAT scenarios).
Anyway, just another idea.
/Jonas
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 6:14 AM, Klaus Darilion klaus.mailinglists@pernau.at wrote:
Am 04.01.2011 08:59, schrieb Stephen McVarnock:
- I tried to REGISTER the SIPP endpoint in a single xml scenario file
with kamailio. This works as per usual. I then killed the SIPP instance and ran a new SIPP script listening on the same port before trying to send the INVITE to it. I expected this to work as the SIPP scenarios (both sending REGISTER and expecting INVITE) listened on the same port. However, the INVITE was not received by the SIPP endpoint. Can anyone think of a reason for this?
That should work - if you use UDP and the time interval between REGISTER and INVITE is small (<30 seconds to avoid NAT/FW issues).
Of course, it also depends if sipp is behind NAT/FW and the Contact used by sipp during REGISTER is correct. If there is some kind of NAT/FW then you should use fix_nated_register() before save().
http://www.kamailio.org/docs/modules/3.0.x/modules_k/nathelper.html#id261085... Read carefully and set the mentioned module parameters!
regards Klaus
Learn how Oracle Real Application Clusters (RAC) One Node allows customers to consolidate database storage, standardize their database environment, and, should the need arise, upgrade to a full multi-node Oracle RAC database without downtime or disruption http://p.sf.net/sfu/oracle-sfdevnl _______________________________________________ Sipp-users mailing list Sipp-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sipp-users
Learn how Oracle Real Application Clusters (RAC) One Node allows customers to consolidate database storage, standardize their database environment, and, should the need arise, upgrade to a full multi-node Oracle RAC database without downtime or disruption http://p.sf.net/sfu/oracle-sfdevnl _______________________________________________ Sipp-users mailing list Sipp-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sipp-users
-
Jonas Borjesson -
Klaus Darilion -
Stephen McVarnock