sr-users August 2010

sr-users@lists.kamailio.org

47 participants
71 discussions

testing phase for 3.1
by Daniel-Constantin Mierla 31 Aug '10

31 Aug '10

Hello, fyi, we entered in testing phase in order to prepare next major release, numbered 3.1.0. Please help to fill the wiki pages for what is new in this version and migration from 3.0.x: http://sip-router.org/wiki/install/3.0.x-to-3.1.x http://sip-router.org/wiki/features/new-in-devel Testing and feedback are very much appreciated! Cheers, Daniel -- Daniel-Constantin Mierla http://www.asipto.com/

6 23

Kamailio 1.5.4 crash
by gwillingham＠comcast.net 31 Aug '10

31 Aug '10

Kamailio 1.5.4 crashes with the following backtrace. (gdb) bt #0 free_to_params (tb=0x79ffc0) at parser/parse_to.c:79 #1 free_to (tb=0x79ffc0) at parser/parse_to.c:88 #2 0x000000000047fe82 in clean_hdr_field (hf=0x2b32776ec6a0) at parser/hf.c:187 #3 0x00002b327492f525 in clean_msg_clone (type=<value optimized out>, trans=<value optimized out>, req=0x2b32776eb510, rpl=0x79f220, code=<value optimized out>) at sip_msg.h:54 #4 run_trans_callbacks (type=<value optimized out>, trans=<value optimized out>, req=0x2b32776eb510, rpl=0x79f220, code=<value optimized out>) at t_hooks.c:245 #5 0x00002b3274949a1d in relay_reply (t=0x2b32776ed130, p_msg=0x79f220, branch=<value optimized out>, msg_status=200, cancel_bitmap=0x7fff5438ecf8) at t_reply.c:1163 #6 0x00002b327494a123 in reply_received (p_msg=0x79f220) at t_reply.c:1511 #7 0x000000000041f08b in forward_reply (msg=0x79f220) at forward.c:576 #8 0x0000000000445453 in receive_msg ( buf=0x719200 "SIP/2.0 200 OK\r\nVia: SIP/2.0/UDP xxx.xxx.xxx.114;branch=z9hG4bKb415.46c549d2.0\r\nVia: SIP/2.0/UDP xx.xxx.xx.xxx:5060;received=xxx.xxx.xx.xxx;branch=z9hG4bK6cd2ebfb;rport=5060\r\nRecord-Route: <sip:xxx.xxx.xxx.x"..., len=1106, rcv_info=0x7fff5438ede0) at receive.c:212 #9 0x00000000004795ee in udp_rcv_loop () at udp_server.c:449 #10 0x000000000042774e in main_loop (argc=3, argv=0x7fff5438eff8) at main.c:774 #11 main (argc=3, argv=0x7fff5438eff8) at main.c:1321 This is occuring on a centos box, 2.6.18-164.11.1.el5 #1 SMP Wed Jan 20 07:32:21 EST 2010 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux The really strange thing is the source of the problem appears to be in clean_hdr_field (hf=0x2b32776ec6a0) at parser/hf.c:187 void clean_hdr_field(struct hdr_field* hf) { if (hf->parsed){ switch(hf->type){ ... case HDR_RPID_T: free_to(hf->parsed); break; ... output from gdb shows hf->parsed to be NULL, however the call to free_to(hf->parsed) is being called, from there bad things happen. Thanks in advance. Gene

4 5

Duplicate INVITE Handling
by Geoffrey Mina 30 Aug '10

30 Aug '10

Hello, I have a question about what the proper way to handle a duplicate presentation of an INVITE is. On occasion I am seeing some packet loss and/or timing issues which are causing some of my end-points to retransmit the INVITE. Here is what I am doing in the most basic sense: ITSP (Bandwidth.com) --> INVITE --> KAMAILIO --> DISPATCHER --> Asterisk (B2BUA) I am seeing Bandwidth.com send an INVITE which I already received. I keep track of all running transactions in a htable which has a key of $ci::$cs::$ft (as per RFC 3261). If I get an invite for something which already has a key in the hashmap, I am currently sending a "482 Loop Detected", but I don't think that is correct as it causes the whole call to tear down instead of letting it continue and assuring Bandwidth.com that I received the initial INVITE and am currently working on it. This is what I am currently doing: ## ## Check to make sure we don't already have an active ## transaction for this call-id, c-seq, and from-tag ## RFC3261 - 8.2.2.2 ## ## We are going to add a key for this unique record if one ## doesn't already exist. The key automatically times out ## after 30 seconds, so we need not worry about cleanup ## if($sht(loop_check=>$ci::$cs::$ft) == null){ xlog("L_INFO","No transaction found, adding to our hashtable\n"); $sht(loop_check=>$ci::$cs::$ft) = 1; }else{ xlog("L_ERR","Loop Detected: $ci::$cs::$ft\n"); sl_send_reply("482","Loop Detected - Duplicate Session Presentation"); exit; } Can I just swallow the second INVITE and do an exit; in my script? Should I do an sl_send_reply(100,"Trying")? Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks,

3 5

Re: [SR-Users] kamailio and asterisk proiblem
by Iñaki Baz Castillo 30 Aug '10

30 Aug '10

Please, replies to the maillist. 2010/8/30 <chuks(a)cybernergies.com>: > I have just that on asterisk, host = kamailio IP and insecure=host,invite. I > don't think this is asterisk related. If you have "insecure=host,invite" then it's wrong. -- Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc(a)aliax.net>

1 0

load_credentials PVs
by Alex Balashov 30 Aug '10

30 Aug '10

Is there a particular reason why in the 'load_credentials' parameter to the 'auth_db' module, one can only store values in AVPs, not script variables? e.g. this works: modparam("auth_db", "load_credentials", "$avp(s:var1)=column") But not this: modparam("auth_db", "load_credentials", "$var(var1)=column"); it results in an error like this: Aug 28 19:00:54 diminuendo-1 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[19651]: ERROR: auth_db [aaa_avps.h:113]: malformed or non AVP $var(auth_user_id) AVP definition Aug 28 19:00:54 diminuendo-1 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[19651]: ERROR: auth_db [aaa_avps.h:179]: parse failed in "$var(auth_user_id)" at pos 0($var(auth_user_id)) Aug 28 19:00:54 diminuendo-1 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[19651]: ERROR: auth_db [authdb_mod.c:208]: failed to parse credentials Aug 28 19:00:54 diminuendo-1 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[19651]: ERROR: <core> [sr_module.c:874]: init_mod(): Error while initializing module auth_db -- 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/

3 2

Re: [SR-Users] Kamailio 3.0 cann't access the RTPProxy
by Daniel-Constantin Mierla 30 Aug '10

30 Aug '10

On 8/17/10 7:14 PM, KevinJin wrote: > Hello Daniel, > > What does the nathelper error messages mean? > ========== > hmm, invalid argurment ... try with this line: > > LM_ERR("can't send command to a RTP proxy (%s/%d) [sock %d (%d), vcnt > %d]\n", > strerror(errno), errno, rtpp_socks[node->idx], node->idx, vcnt); > > maybe will give some hints about which value is invalid. > > Here's the log after the change: > 4(14415) ERROR: nathelper [nathelper.c:2457]: can't send command to a > RTP proxy (Invalid argument/22) [sock 7 (0), vcnt 18] can you check the manual page for writev on your system to see what are possible reasons for 'Invalid argument' error (error code 22)? The values in between [...] are just some debug values I wanted to see, not error codes or so. Cheers, Daniel > 4(14415) ERROR: nathelper [nathelper.c:2492]: proxy > <udp:210.13.x.y:7722> does not respond, disable it > 4(14415) ERROR: nathelper [nathelper.c:3144]: no available proxies > > Thanks, > Kevin > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > From: kevin.jzh(a)hotmail.com > To: miconda(a)gmail.com > Subject: RE: [SR-Users] Kamailio 3.0 cann't access the RTPProxy > Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 18:51:02 +0800 > > > Hi Daniel, > > Attached are the two kamailio logs, > unix_socket_log --- run rtp proxy wth -s unix:/tmp/rtpproxy.sock > udp_rtpproxy_log --- run rtp proxy with -s udp:*:7722 > > Please help to check what's wrong with it. > > Thanks, > Kevin > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 11:29:46 +0200 > From: miconda(a)gmail.com > To: kevin.jzh(a)hotmail.com > CC: sr-users(a)lists.sip-router.org > Subject: Re: [SR-Users] Kamailio 3.0 cann't access the RTPProxy > > Hello, > > please send full log at startup, your snippets include just few lines > per process, being mixed from different processes. > > Cheers, > Daniel > > > On 8/14/10 3:54 AM, KevinJin wrote: > > Hello, > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 22:16:18 +0200 > From: miconda(a)gmail.com <mailto:miconda@gmail.com> > To: kevin.jzh(a)hotmail.com <mailto:kevin.jzh@hotmail.com> > CC: sr-users(a)lists.sip-router.org > <mailto:sr-users@lists.sip-router.org> > Subject: Re: [SR-Users] Kamailio 3.0 cann't access the RTPProxy > > Hello, > > On 8/12/10 8:34 PM, KevinJin wrote: > > Hello, > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 18:46:19 +0200 > From: miconda(a)gmail.com <mailto:miconda@gmail.com> > To: kevin.jzh(a)hotmail.com <mailto:kevin.jzh@hotmail.com> > CC: sr-users(a)lists.sip-router.org > <mailto:sr-users@lists.sip-router.org> > Subject: Re: [SR-Users] Kamailio 3.0 cann't access the RTPProxy > > Hello, > > On 8/12/10 4:47 PM, KevinJin wrote: > > Hi Daniel, > > What does the log below means? Does it mean nathelper has > issue to send the request to RTP proxy first or nathelper > doesn't receive a response after sending a request to the > rtp proxy? > 0(27429) ERROR: nathelper [nathelper.c:2457]: can't send > command to a RTP proxy > > this error is printed when write to socket fails. Do you have > any firewall running on the system? Is the user under which > kamailio runs allowed to write to sockets? > > > There's no firewall on the system, and I run the kamailio > as root, > root 26310 1 0 02:24:19 ? 0:00 > /usr/local/kamailio-3.0.2/sbin/kamailio -f > /usr/local/kamailio-3.0.2/etc/kamail > > You can edit module_k/nathelper/nathelper.c and replace > the line 2457 with: > > LM_ERR("can't send command to a RTP proxy (%s/%d)\n", > strerror(errno), errno); > > Recompile and reinstall. Hopefully will get more hints > about what happens. > > > Here is the error message after the change: > 2(26312) ERROR: nathelper [nathelper.c:2457]: can't send > command to a RTP proxy(Invalid argument/22) > 2(26312) ERROR: nathelper [nathelper.c:2492]: proxy > <udp:210.13.124.15:7722> does not respond, disable it > 2(26312) ERROR: nathelper [nathelper.c:3144]: no available proxies > what could be the cause? > > hmm, invalid argurment ... try with this line: > > LM_ERR("can't send command to a RTP proxy (%s/%d) [sock %d (%d), > vcnt %d]\n", > strerror(errno), errno, rtpp_socks[node->idx], node->idx, vcnt); > > maybe will give some hints about which value is invalid. > > Here's the log after the change: > 4(14415) ERROR: nathelper [nathelper.c:2457]: can't send command > to a RTP proxy (Invalid argument/22) [sock 7 (0), vcnt 18] > 4(14415) ERROR: nathelper [nathelper.c:2492]: proxy > <udp:210.13.x.y:7722> does not respond, disable it > 4(14415) ERROR: nathelper [nathelper.c:3144]: no available proxies > > > Can you try as well with an unix file socket: > > modparam("nathelper", "rtpproxy_sock", "unix:/tmp/rtpproxy.sock") > > then start rtpproxy with -s unix:/tmp/rtpproxy.sock > > > 4(17530) INFO: nathelper [nathelper.c:2369]: rtp proxy > <unix:/tmp/rtpproxy.sock> found, support for it re-enabled > 3(17529) ERROR: nathelper [nathelper.c:2429]: can't send command > to a RTP proxy > 3(17529) ERROR: nathelper [nathelper.c:2492]: proxy > <unix:/tmp/rtpproxy.sock> does not respond, disable it > 3(17529) ERROR: nathelper [nathelper.c:3144]: no available proxies > > Thanks, > Kevin > > I have no solaris (sparc) to try myself... > > Cheers, > Daniel > > > > Test env: > UA1 (Behind NAT) --------> Kamailio & RTPproxy (Public IP) > --------->UA2 (Public IP) > > Thanks, > Kevin > Cheers, > Daniel > > > > 0(27429) ERROR: nathelper [nathelper.c:2492]: proxy > <udp:210.13.124.15:7722> does not respond, disable it > > There's no problem for the resource(CPU, mem etc.) on the > server, the load is very low. > > Thanks in advance! > ---------- > 0(27429) DEBUG: nathelper [nhelpr_funcs.c:148]: type > <application/sdp> found valid > 0(27429) ERROR: nathelper [nathelper.c:3144]: no available > proxies > 0(27429) ERROR: nathelper [nathelper.c:2627]: no available > proxies > 0(27429) DEBUG: nathelper [nhelpr_funcs.c:148]: type > <application/sdp> found valid > 0(27429) INFO: nathelper [nathelper.c:2369]: rtp proxy > <udp:210.13.124.15:7722> found, support for it re-enabled > 0(27429) DEBUG: nathelper [nathelper.c:3196]: proxy reply: > 42040 210.13.124.14 > 0(27429) DEBUG: nathelper [nhelpr_funcs.c:148]: type > <application/sdp> found valid > 0(27429) ERROR: nathelper [nathelper.c:2457]: can't send > command to a RTP proxy > 0(27429) ERROR: nathelper [nathelper.c:2492]: proxy > <udp:210.13.124.15:7722> does not respond, disable it > 0(27429) ERROR: nathelper [nathelper.c:3144]: no available > proxies > 0(27429) ERROR: nathelper [nathelper.c:2627]: no available > proxies > > Thanks, > Kevin > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > _______________________________________________ > SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list > sr-users(a)lists.sip-router.org <mailto:sr-users@lists.sip-router.org> > http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users > > > -- > Daniel-Constantin Mierla > http://www.asipto.com/ > > > -- > Daniel-Constantin Mierla > http://www.asipto.com/ > > > -- > Daniel-Constantin Mierla > http://www.asipto.com/ -- Daniel-Constantin Mierla http://www.asipto.com/

2 2

Question
by Stefan Parreiras 30 Aug '10

30 Aug '10

Hello, My name is Stefan, I am from Brazil I created a Iptel SIP account, but I would like to know if is possible make to call to the phone number...Could you help me with this doubt? Regards. Stefan

2 1

lcr
by Anders 30 Aug '10

30 Aug '10

Hi, I some calls to a specific `sub-region` that I want to limit to a specific trunk. Example. Region 1: prefix 55, trunk 1, priority 10 Region 1: prefix 55, trunk 2, priority 20 Sub-region A: prefix 5512, trunk 1, priority 30 I do not want the calls to prefix 5512 to fail-over to trunk 2 in case of 404, 503 or the like. So I have tried to put priority 30 on sub-region A and a lower priority on Region 1, but it still fails over to trunk 2 - can I prevent this? Thanks! //Anders

4 9

help to configre RTP proxy.
by truong ngoc THANH 27 Aug '10

27 Aug '10

hi all, I hae configure RTP proxy it work ok. please help me to configure that : if sip client is in the same NAT(same LAN network) , they can make call directly (RTP go direct without through RTP proxy). thanks so much. ThanhTruong HTK-INC Co.,Ltd VN www.htk-inc.com http://pbxvn.com/forum/

3 7

help to fix bug in nathelper module
by truong ngoc THANH 27 Aug '10

27 Aug '10

hi all, I have configure nathelper in kamailio, but it does not work as I expect. I using function : force_rpt_proxy("","115.X.X.190") to change ip_add of SDP packet. But I see that value c= <ip add > not change to c=<115.X.X.190>. thanks for help. ThanhTruong HTK-INC Co.,Ltd http://www.htk-inc.com/ http://pbxvn.com/forum/

1 0

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

sr-users August 2010