Hi all,
I'm using carrierroute module and ie seems that it's not working
well...Suppose I have 2 entries in carrierroute table...Entry 1 with scan
prefix 00 and prob 0 and a second entry with scan prefix 00 and prob=1...As
soon as i make a call, this call will be forwarded to the entry with prob 0
because i guess it appears before the one with prob 1 in the table...
When starting Kamailio I got the below:
Jul 29 12:30:11 [23143] INFO:carrierroute:add_route: adding prefix 1, prob
-14931260.000000
Jul 29 12:30:11 [23143] INFO:carrierroute:get_route_tree: domain 0 not
found, add it
Jul 29 12:30:11 [23143] INFO:carrierroute:add_route_tree: tree default has 1
trees
Jul 29 12:30:11 [23143] DBG:carrierroute:add_route_tree: tree 0Jul 29
12:30:11 [23143] INFO:carrierroute:get_route_tree: created route tree: 0,
with id 0
Jul 29 12:30:11 [23143] INFO:carrierroute:add_route: found route, now adding
Jul 29 12:30:11 [23143] INFO:carrierroute:add_route_rule: no backed up rules
Jul 29 12:30:11 [23143] INFO:carrierroute:add_route: adding prefix , prob
-14931260.000000
Jul 29 12:30:11 [23143] INFO:carrierroute:get_route_tree: found domain 0
Jul 29 12:30:11 [23143] INFO:carrierroute:add_route: found route, now adding
Jul 29 12:30:11 [23143] INFO:carrierroute:add_route_rule: no backed up rules
Jul 29 12:30:11 [23143] INFO:carrierroute:add_route: adding prefix 011, prob
-14931260.000000
Jul 29 12:30:11 [23143] INFO:carrierroute:get_route_tree: found domain 0
Jul 29 12:30:11 [23143] INFO:carrierroute:add_route: found route, now adding
Jul 29 12:30:11 [23143] INFO:carrierroute:add_route_rule: no backed up rules
Jul 29 12:30:11 [23143] INFO:carrierroute:add_route: adding prefix 00, prob
-14931260.000000
Jul 29 12:30:11 [23143] INFO:carrierroute:get_route_tree: found domain 0
Jul 29 12:30:11 [23143] INFO:carrierroute:add_route: found route, now adding
Jul 29 12:30:11 [23143] INFO:carrierroute:add_route_rule: no backed up rules
Jul 29 12:30:11 [23143] INFO:carrierroute:add_route: adding prefix 111, prob
-14931260.000000
Jul 29 12:30:11 [23143] INFO:carrierroute:get_route_tree: found domain 0
Jul 29 12:30:11 [23143] INFO:carrierroute:add_route: found route, now adding
Jul 29 12:30:11 [23143] INFO:carrierroute:add_route_rule: no backed up rules
Jul 29 12:30:11 [23143] INFO:carrierroute:add_route: adding prefix 00, prob
-14931260.000000
Jul 29 12:30:11 [23143] INFO:carrierroute:get_route_tree: found domain 0
Jul 29 12:30:11 [23143] INFO:carrierroute:add_route: found route, now adding
Jul 29 12:30:11 [23143] INFO:carrierroute:add_route_rule: no backed up rules
Jul 29 12:30:11 [23143] INFO:carrierroute:add_route: adding prefix , prob
-14931260.000000
Jul 29 12:30:11 [23143] INFO:carrierroute:get_route_tree: found domain 0
Jul 29 12:30:11 [23143] INFO:carrierroute:add_route: found route, now adding
Jul 29 12:30:11 [23143] INFO:carrierroute:add_route_rule: no backed up rules
Jul 29 12:30:11 [23143] INFO:carrierroute:add_route: adding prefix 011, prob
-14931260.000000
Jul 29 12:30:11 [23143] INFO:carrierroute:get_route_tree: found domain 0
Jul 29 12:30:11 [23143] INFO:carrierroute:add_route: found route, now adding
Jul 29 12:30:11 [23143] INFO:carrierroute:add_route_rule: no backed up rules
Jul 29 12:30:11 [23143] INFO:carrierroute:add_route: adding prefix 011, prob
-14931260.000000
Jul 29 12:30:11 [23143] INFO:carrierroute:get_route_tree: found domain 0
Jul 29 12:30:11 [23143] INFO:carrierroute:add_route: found route, now adding
Jul 29 12:30:11 [23143] INFO:carrierroute:add_route_rule: no backed up rules
Jul 29 12:30:11 [23143] INFO:carrierroute:add_route: adding prefix , prob
-14931260.000000
Jul 29 12:30:11 [23143] INFO:carrierroute:get_route_tree: found domain 0
Jul 29 12:30:11 [23143] INFO:carrierroute:add_route: found route, now adding
Jul 29 12:30:11 [23143] INFO:carrierroute:add_route_rule: no backed up rules
It seems that kamailio is not reading probability entry in carrier route
table
Please find below carrierroute table structure:
CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS `carrierroute` (
`id` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL auto_increment,
`carrier` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL default '0',
`domain` varchar(64) NOT NULL default '',
`scan_prefix` varchar(64) NOT NULL default '',
`flags` int(11) unsigned NOT NULL default '0',
`mask` int(11) unsigned NOT NULL default '0',
`prob` float NOT NULL default '0',
`strip` int(11) unsigned NOT NULL default '0',
`rewrite_host` varchar(128) NOT NULL default '',
`rewrite_prefix` varchar(64) NOT NULL default '',
`rewrite_suffix` varchar(64) NOT NULL default '',
`description` varchar(255) default NULL,
PRIMARY KEY (`id`)
) ENGINE=MyISAM DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1 AUTO_INCREMENT=23 ;
Can someone help me to find this issue?
Regards
Hi all,
the function check_user_blacklist in kamailio 1.4 returns -1 (FALSE
based on the doc) "if a match is found and it is not set to
whitelist", otherwise it returns 1 (TRUE). So the function returns the
same value if a match is found and is set to whitelist and if there
are no matches.
I need to differentiate the two situations.
The userblacklist module in kamailio 3.0 has a new function
"check_user_whitelist" that can solve my problem, but at this time I
can't upgrade.
I solved the problem, changing only the return value in case of
whitelisted entry (userblacklist.c file), but I don't know if it is a
safe (and suffice) modification. Below the piece of code in the
userblacklist.c:
if (dt_longest_match(dt_root, ptr, &whitelist) >= 0) {
if (whitelist) {
/* LM_ERR("whitelisted"); */
return 2; /* found, but is whitelisted */
<===== CHANGED HERE. IT WAS return 1
}
} else {
/* LM_ERR("not found"); */
return 1; /* not found is ok */
}
Thanks. Regards.
--
Antonio
Hi All,
I've been ripping my hair out for a little with load_gws().
How do I know what the lcr_id is and the caller_uri?
I would have thought that $fu for caller_uri would have been sufficient but
it seems not.
Cheers,
Kris
Hello,
I was thinking of having an IRC meeting to discuss next steps within sip
router. Now that 3.0 branches are out for a while, would be good to plan
a bit 3.1. For me Friday (or even Thursday if not too early for others
to make arrangements) this week would be good, say 14:00 or 15:00UTC to
allow fair time for US.
If this date does not fit, please make proposals. The channel is
#sip-router on freenode.net.
Cheers,
Daniel
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
eLearning class for Kamailio 3.0.0
* http://www.asipto.com/
Hi all,
I'm trying to send xmlrpc commands to Kamailio with Siremis but I get the
error below:
Fault Code: 5
Fault Reason: Didn't receive 200 OK from remote server. (HTTP/1.1 400 Bad
Request)
I get the same error when I manually send the xmlrpc command with curl.
On the other hand, mi_xmlrpc module seems to be correctly loaded, but
nothing is written in the log file (set with
modparam("mi_xmlrpc", "log_file", "/var/log/abyss.log")).
Does anybody know where the problem might be?
Best regards,
thanks in advance.
Anton Roman
These are the traces of the xmlrpc message flow:
T +11.569284 127.0.0.1:37821 -> 127.0.0.1:8080 [AP]
POST HTTP/1.0
User-Agent: PEAR XML_RPC
Host: 127.0.0.1
Content-Type: text/xml
Content-Length: 135
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<methodCall>
<methodName>system.listMethods</methodName>
<params>
</params>
</methodCall>
##
T +0.000363 127.0.0.1:8080 -> 127.0.0.1:37821 [AP]
HTTP/1.1 400 Bad Request
#
T +0.000146 127.0.0.1:8080 -> 127.0.0.1:37821 [AP]
Content-type: text/html
#
T +0.001982 127.0.0.1:8080 -> 127.0.0.1:37821 [AFP]
Connection: close
Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 14:04:08 GMT
Server: XMLRPC_ABYSS/1.06
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Error 400</TITLE></HEAD><BODY><H1>Error 400</H1><P>Bad
Request</P><p><HR><b><i><a href="http://xmlrpc-c.sourceforge.net">ABYSS Web
Server for XML-RPC For C/C++</a></i></b> version 1.06<br></p></BODY></HTML>
####
Hi all,
I'm trying to setup a very basic scenario with kamailio 3.0. It is
placed in front of a softswitch and it has to modify some headers
before forward (stateless) messages to softswitch.
If I use
route {
rewritehost("192.168.10.1");
t_relay();
}
all work, but if I want to do that stateless and I use forward() or
send() instead of t_relay(), I get a syntax error:
"bad forward argument" or "bad send argument". If I use
...
forward("udp:192.168.10.1:5060");
...
I see in the log
/usr/local/sbin/kamailio[3675]: : <core> [proxy.c:271]: ERROR:
mk_proxy: could not resolve hostname: "udp:192.168.10.1:5060"
/usr/local/sbin/kamailio[3675]: ERROR: <core> [route.c:1026]: fixing
failed (code=-478) at cfg:/usr/local/etc/kamailio/kamailio.cfg:77
Same error using the long format of send() function.
I can't see any particular hint on the documentation, what I'm missing?
Thank you. Best regards.
--
Antonio
Hi All,
Just thought that you might want to put down that libpcre is required for
lcr in the install document. (Since the other main modules have their
requirements listed).
Cheers,
Kris
Dear All,
I want to change a field (Sip to address host part) at sip message header. I think avpops will solve this.If anybody has a sample confg and send to me I will be very glad.Regards,Adnan.
#---------------------------------------------------- #7777 CALL ROUTING #-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* if(is_method("INVITE") && (uri=~"sip:7777")){ rewritehostport("192.168.1.10:5060"); route(1); exit; } #----------------------------------------------------
at this rule, the invite is going to 192.168.1.10 with the host part as abc.com, we want to send with another domain.
Instead of abc.com domain, I want to use 192.168.1.10 domain ;
To:<sip:7777@abc.com>
To:<sip:7777@192.168.1.10>
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live Hotmail: Arkadaşlarınız Facebook'taki güncellemelerinizi doğrudan Hotmail®'den alır.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowslive/see-it-in-action/social-networ…
Hello,
we use Kamailio 3.0 on a Red Hat EL5.4 system with openssl 0.9.8e (the
current Red Hat OpenSSL version). We want to use Kamailio 3.0 in front of
our Call Server (OpenSER 1.3.2) as a security gateway. So the Call Server
should only deal tcp, while the Security Gateway terminates the TLS Data
which he receives from the User Agents but forwards the SIP-Messages via TCP
to the Call Server.
UA ---SIP_over_TLS---> Security Gateway (Kam3.0) ---SIP_over_TCP---> Call
Server (OpenSER1.3.2)
UA<---SIP_over_TLS--- Security Gateway (Kam3.0) <---SIP_over_TCP--- Call
Server (OpenSER1.3.2)
Nearly everything works fine in this scenario: User Agents are able to
register and when they are sending INVITES the callee receives it.
The problem we have right now is: if Kamailio 3.0 receives BYE we get 477
Unfortunatly error on sending to next hop occured. It seems that the
messages are ok...
I attached a text file with the BYE message and the errors.
Explanation for the text file:
* UA1: 192.168.0.126
* UA2: 192.168.0.176
*Security Gateway (Kam3.0): 192.168.0.89
*Call Server (OpenSER1.3.2): 192.168.0.106
Do you have any suggestions?
Thank you very much in advance!
Regards
Andreas
Dipl.-Ing. (FH) Andreas Rehbein
FH Frankfurt am Main - University of Applied Sciences
FB 2 - Informatik und Ingenieurwissenschaften
Forschungsgruppe für Telekommunikationsnetze
Kleiststraße 3
60318 Frankfurt am Main
Tel.: +49 (0) 69 1533 3613
Fax: +49 (0) 69 1539 5224 961
E-Mail: <mailto:rehbein@e-technik.org> rehbein(a)e-technik.org
Internet: <http://www.e-technik.org/frame_forschung.htm>
http://www.e-technik.org/frame_forschung.htm
