sr-users November 2013

sr-users@lists.kamailio.org

100 participants
161 discussions

t_reply in failure route with dialog module
by Efelin Novak 03 Jan '14

03 Jan '14

Hi, when I use t_reply("505", "Error"); in my failure route, the response is not forwarded and following is written into a log: kamailio[26216]: WARNING: tm [t_lookup.c:1559]: t_unref(): WARNING: script writer didn't release transaction plus next line is written exactly 416000 times into a log afterwards: kamailio[32685]: CRITICAL: dialog [dlg_hash.c:794]: log_next_state_dlg(): bogus event 4 in state 5 for dlg 0xb4af6588 [2575:7017] with clid '121d44f0-6555f4c8' and tags 'd12546d053aadc68o2' '' My point is to change the incoming code from users and append a Q.850 reason code. Is there any other way how to do this or a way how to fix this? I'm using Kamilio 4.0.4 on Debian 7.1 The code is as follows: failure_route[MANAGE_FAILURE] { if (t_is_canceled()) { exit; } if($T_reply_code == 408 && isflagset(10)) { xlog("Ringing timeout"); append_to_reply("Reason: Q.850;cause=28\r\n"); t_reply("505", "Error"); } }

3 10

Kamailio stability/timing problem w.r.t. registrations?
by Sotas Development 16 Dec '13

16 Dec '13

Hi, We run Kamailio 3.2.3 (FLAVOUR=ser) on an embedded ARM platform in near- default configuration. In a duration test, we observe that at a certain moment Kamailio seems to start ignoring all (re-)register messages, and eventually expires the existing registrations. We have not been able to reproduce the issue using debug-level logging (-dddd). Info-level logging (-ddd) does reproduce the error, but does not produce any error messages. Configuration: ser-basic.cfg, with the following changes: port=5060 alias=testnet Command line: ser -m 4 -f /etc/ser/ser-basic.cfg -n3 -l udp:eth0 Load: Bursts of 8 (Re-)REGISTER messages that are repeated every 85 seconds. The specified expiration time is 120 seconds. Bursts of 9 (Re-)INVITE messages that are repeated every 45 seconds. Note: With this load it takes roughly 1 hour for the error to occur. Using a more standard 3600 second expiration time Kamailio still stalls, it just takes longer. Does anyone have any idea how to tackle this issue? Kind regards, Michiel Veldkamp

3 14

Billing
by Oliver Roth 09 Dec '13

09 Dec '13

Hi all I am looking for a free billing solution usable with Kamailio. I currently use the sp from siremis - so far it works fine! I need to get a solution where I can add credit limits for users/trunks or credit limits for carriers (eg. If we made a prepayment). I thing JBilling could be great - but I think the Telco version will cost a monthly fee.. Other ideas or solutions? Btw: The invoice itself will be made in an ERP system - so I actually just need the rating and credit-management to handle the routings. Regards, Oli

3 2

Kamailio sending HTTP request to another app
by Victor Torre Antunez 09 Dec '13

09 Dec '13

Hi all, I´m using EXEC Module to execute a HTTP request via curl, to comunicate with another app like this: exec_avp("curl --connect-timeout 1 --max-time 2 http://IP_ADDR:PORT/PATH/'$fU'/'$tU'/'$hdr(Call-ID)'", "$avp(s:output)"); Sometimes Kamailio blocks when HTTP server does not response in time, despite the max-time parameter. I found this know issue on EXEC module docs: "There is currently no guarantee that scripts ever return and stop blocking SIP server. (There is kill.c but it is not used along with the current mechanisms based on popen. Besides that kill.c is ugly)." Does anyone know a better way to communicate Kamailio with a HTTP server without blocks? I will try a python script to send the HTTP request and call it with APP_PYTHON module. Has anyone had blocks with APP_PYTHON module? Thanks in advance. -- *Victor*

5 6

Kamailio- Redirect message 300 with LCR reroute
by Fatima Chahrour~Vanrise Support 06 Dec '13

06 Dec '13

Dear List, I'd like to get help regarding my case. I have the following script where many thanks to Daniel has helped me in if (is_method("INVITE")) { if (!load_gws(1, $rU, $fu)) { sl_send_reply("502", "Unable To lOad GatEwAyS"); exit;} if(!next_gw()){ sl_send_reply("503", "Unable To fInD a gateWaY"); exit;} while(next_gw()){ km_append_branch(); } sl_send_reply("302","Moved Temporary"); exit; } The problem am facing is that the call is rerouting from the first gateway to the next gateway successfully when I have two gateways. BUT when I have three gateways, and the first two gateways are off, the call is not rerouted to the third gateway. It keeps hitting the seconds gateway and gives request time out at the end Why is that? Thanks in advance, F Chahrour

3 14

kamailioi is not relaying BYE message to UAC
by Arif Hossain 06 Dec '13

06 Dec '13

Hi, We have the following network architecture : UAC1------------------------->kamailio-------------------->VoipSwitch----->PSTN---------->Phone1 (Sip Client) Now UAC1 calls Phone1 and everything is ok. If UAC1 hangs up session is terminated cleanly. But if Phone1 hangs up the BYE message which comes to kamailio and goes back to VoipSwitch instead of relayed to UAC1 . So The session becomes a zombie one, And UAC1 unfortunately gets billed for a session which should be terminated. Following is the Call flow as seen from VoipSwitch : | <kamilio IP> | | | | <VoipSwitch IP> | |134.856 | INVITE SDP | |(7890) ------------------> (5060) | |134.858 | 407 Proxy Authentication Required | |(7890) <------------------ (5060) | |134.902 | ACK | | |(7890) ------------------> (5060) | |135.408 | INVITE SDP | |(7890) ------------------> (5060) | |135.414 | 100 Trying| | |(7890) <------------------ (5060) | |140.121 | 183 Session Progress SDP | |(7890) <------------------ (5060) | |140.184 | RTP (g729) | | |(61868) <------------------ (5136) | |141.295 | RTP (g729) | | |(61868) ------------------> (5136) | |153.701 | 200 OK SDP | |(7890) <------------------ (5060) | |153.713 | RTP (g729) | | |(61868) ------------------> (5136) | |154.126 | ACK | | |(7890) ------------------> (5060) | |159.988 | BYE | | |(7890) <------------------ (5060) | |160.031 | BYE | | |(7890) ------------------> (5060) | |160.478 | BYE | | |(7890) ------------------> (5060) | |161.412 | BYE | | |(7890) ------------------> (5060) | |181.952 | BYE | | |(7890) ------------------> (5060) | |185.687 | BYE | | |(7890) ------------------> (5060) | |188.018 | 408 Request Timeout | |(7890) ------------------> (5060) | Sip Traces : kamailio------>VoipSwitch I'm posting only the offending BYE msg instead of full trace , because of the mail will become difficult to read . If more traces needed, i can post it. The following BYE message is sent by VoipSwitch: BYE sip:ipphone@205.164.40.74 SIP/2.0 Route: <sip:108.166.195.189:7890;lr=on;nat=yes> CSeq: 2 BYE Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 205.164.40.74:5060 From: sip:008801673345531@205.164.40.74;tag=100528120745985872655137 Call-ID: IqBknV19AuxW0jk.8BjuE4hyx93Ws9qS To: "123456" <sip:ipphone@205.164.40.74>;tag=Zopl5lj5YiqyaSR5Le3QnfoR-G0NZAGG Content-Length: 0 Kamailio instead of relaying the message, sends a BYE message towards VoipSwitch: BYE sip:ipphone@205.164.40.74 SIP/2.0 Max-Forwards: 10 CSeq: 2 BYE Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 108.166.195.189:7890;branch=z9hG4bK4b2b.5d893e95.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 205.164.40.74:5060;rport=5060 From: sip:008801673345531@205.164.40.74;tag=100528120745985872655137 Call-ID: IqBknV19AuxW0jk.8BjuE4hyx93Ws9qS To: "123456" <sip:ipphone@205.164.40.74>;tag=Zopl5lj5YiqyaSR5Le3QnfoR-G0NZAGG Content-Length: 0 When the first BYE message comes from VoipSwitch , kamailio does the following : May 20 02:25:53 VOS20-108 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[16442]: DEBUG: <core> [receive.c:289]: receive_msg: cleaning up May 20 02:25:53 VOS20-108 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[16442]: DEBUG: <core> [parser/sdp/sdp.c:751]: _sdp = 0x831bf10 May 20 02:25:53 VOS20-108 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[16442]: DEBUG: <core> [parser/sdp/sdp.c:753]: sdp = 0x83043dc May 20 02:25:53 VOS20-108 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[16442]: DEBUG: <core> [parser/sdp/sdp.c:755]: session = 0x8304504 May 20 02:26:04 VOS20-108 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[16443]: DEBUG: <core> [parser/msg_parser.c:630]: SIP Request: May 20 02:26:04 VOS20-108 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[16443]: DEBUG: <core> [parser/msg_parser.c:632]: method: <BYE> May 20 02:26:04 VOS20-108 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[16443]: DEBUG: <core> [parser/msg_parser.c:634]: uri: <sip:ipphone@205.164.40.74> May 20 02:26:04 VOS20-108 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[16443]: DEBUG: <core> [parser/msg_parser.c:636]: version: <SIP/2.0> May 20 02:26:04 VOS20-108 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[16443]: DEBUG: <core> [parser/msg_parser.c:167]: get_hdr_field: cseq <CSeq>: <1> <BYE> May 20 02:26:04 VOS20-108 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[16443]: DEBUG: <core> [parser/parse_via.c:1287]: Found param type 232, <branch> = <z9hG4bk19052612230719933454843>; state=16 May 20 02:26:04 VOS20-108 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[16443]: DEBUG: <core> [parser/parse_via.c:2300]: end of header reached, state=5 May 20 02:26:04 VOS20-108 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[16443]: DEBUG: <core> [parser/msg_parser.c:515]: parse_headers: Via found, flags=2 May 20 02:26:04 VOS20-108 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[16443]: DEBUG: <core> [parser/msg_parser.c:517]: parse_headers: this is the first via May 20 02:26:04 VOS20-108 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[16443]: DEBUG: <core> [receive.c:145]: After parse_msg... May 20 02:26:04 VOS20-108 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[16443]: DEBUG: <core> [receive.c:186]: preparing to run routing scripts... May 20 02:26:04 VOS20-108 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[16443]: DEBUG: <core> [parser/parse_to.c:174]: DEBUG: add_param: tag=arILprdVR1srJ76HHlt4BEc3XsyaWcZm May 20 02:26:04 VOS20-108 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[16443]: DEBUG: <core> [parser/parse_to.c:803]: end of header reached, state=29 May 20 02:26:04 VOS20-108 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[16443]: DEBUG: <core> [parser/msg_parser.c:187]: DEBUG: get_hdr_field: <To> [76]; uri=[sip:ipphone@205.164.40.74] May 20 02:26:04 VOS20-108 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[16443]: DEBUG: <core> [parser/msg_parser.c:189]: DEBUG: to body ["ipphone" <sip:ipphone@205.164.40.74>] May 20 02:26:04 VOS20-108 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[16443]: DEBUG: <core> [parser/msg_parser.c:201]: DEBUG: get_hdr_body : content_length=0 May 20 02:26:04 VOS20-108 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[16443]: DEBUG: <core> [parser/msg_parser.c:103]: found end of header May 20 02:26:04 VOS20-108 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[16443]: DEBUG: maxfwd [mf_funcs.c:66]: max_forwards header not found! May 20 02:26:04 VOS20-108 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[16443]: DEBUG: <core> [parser/parse_to.c:174]: DEBUG: add_param: tag=1905251223419334290936029 May 20 02:26:04 VOS20-108 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[16443]: DEBUG: <core> [parser/parse_to.c:803]: end of header reached, state=29 May 20 02:26:04 VOS20-108 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[16443]: DEBUG: siputils [checks.c:76]: totag found May 20 02:26:04 VOS20-108 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[16443]: DEBUG: rr [loose.c:85]: is_preloaded: No May 20 02:26:04 VOS20-108 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[16443]: DEBUG: <core> [socket_info.c:501]: grep_sock_info - checking if host==us: 13==15 && [205.164.40.74] == [108.166.195.189] May 20 02:26:04 VOS20-108 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[16443]: DEBUG: <core> [socket_info.c:504]: grep_sock_info - checking if port 7890 matches port 5060 May 20 02:26:04 VOS20-108 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[16443]: DEBUG: <core> [socket_info.c:501]: grep_sock_info - checking if host==us: 13==15 && [205.164.40.74] == [108.166.195.189] May 20 02:26:04 VOS20-108 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[16443]: DEBUG: <core> [socket_info.c:504]: grep_sock_info - checking if port 5060 matches port 5060 May 20 02:26:04 VOS20-108 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[16443]: DEBUG: <core> [forward.c:448]: check_self: host != me May 20 02:26:04 VOS20-108 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[16443]: DEBUG: <core> [socket_info.c:501]: grep_sock_info - checking if host==us: 15==15 && [108.166.195.189] == [108.166.195.189] May 20 02:26:04 VOS20-108 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[16443]: DEBUG: <core> [socket_info.c:504]: grep_sock_info - checking if port 7890 matches port 7890 May 20 02:26:04 VOS20-108 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[16443]: DEBUG: rr [loose.c:792]: Topmost route URI: 'sip:108.166.195.189:7890;lr=on;nat=yes' is me May 20 02:26:04 VOS20-108 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[16443]: DEBUG: <core> [parser/msg_parser.c:103]: found end of header May 20 02:26:04 VOS20-108 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[16443]: DEBUG: rr [loose.c:257]: No next Route HF found May 20 02:26:04 VOS20-108 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[16443]: DEBUG: rr [loose.c:811]: No next URI found May 20 02:26:04 VOS20-108 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[16443]: DEBUG: rr [loose.c:983]: params are <;lr=on;nat=yes> May 20 02:26:04 VOS20-108 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[16443]: DEBUG: siputils [checks.c:76]: totag found May 20 02:26:04 VOS20-108 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[16443]: DEBUG: tm [t_lookup.c:1379]: DEBUG: t_newtran: msg id=2501 , global msg id=2500 , T on entrance=0xffffffff May 20 02:26:04 VOS20-108 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[16443]: DEBUG: tm [t_lookup.c:528]: t_lookup_request: start searching: hash=29177, isACK=0 May 20 02:26:04 VOS20-108 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[16443]: DEBUG: tm [t_lookup.c:564]: DEBUG: proceeding to pre-RFC3261 transaction matching May 20 02:26:04 VOS20-108 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[16443]: DEBUG: tm [t_lookup.c:711]: DEBUG: t_lookup_request: no transaction found May 20 02:26:04 VOS20-108 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[16443]: DEBUG: tm [t_hooks.c:374]: DBG: trans=0xb61626a4, callback type 1, id 0 entered May 20 02:26:04 VOS20-108 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[16443]: DEBUG: <core> [msg_translator.c:204]: check_via_address(205.164.40.74, 205.164.40.74, 0) May 20 02:26:04 VOS20-108 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[16443]: DEBUG: tm [t_funcs.c:388]: SER: new transaction fwd'ed May 20 02:26:04 VOS20-108 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[16443]: DEBUG: <core> [usr_avp.c:646]: DEBUG:destroy_avp_list: destroying list (nil) May 20 02:26:04 VOS20-108 last message repeated 5 times May 20 02:26:04 VOS20-108 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[16443]: DEBUG: <core> [receive.c:289]: receive_msg: cleaning up May 20 02:26:22 VOS20-108 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[16445]: DEBUG: <core> [udp_server.c:486]: udp_rcv_loop: probing packet received from 180.234.62.230 38722 May 20 02:26:34 VOS20-108 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[16450]: DEBUG: tm [t_reply.c:1134]: ->>>>>>>>> T_code=0, new_code=408 May 20 02:26:34 VOS20-108 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[16450]: DEBUG: tm [t_reply.c:1636]: DEBUG: relay_reply: branch=0, save=0, relay=0 May 20 02:26:34 VOS20-108 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[16450]: DEBUG: <core> [msg_translator.c:204]: check_via_address(205.164.40.74, 205.164.40.74, 0) May 20 02:26:34 VOS20-108 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[16450]: DEBUG: <core> [mem/shm_mem.c:105]: WARNING:vqm_resize: resize(0) called May 20 02:26:34 VOS20-108 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[16450]: DEBUG: tm [t_hooks.c:288]: DBG: trans=0xb61626a4, callback type 128, id 0 entered May 20 02:26:54 VOS20-108 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[16451]: WARNING: <core> [timer.c:450]: WARNING: our timer runs faster then real-time (300000 ms / 4800 ticks our time .-> 299923 ms / 4798 ticks real time) OT: How do you guys maintain 80 column mails? i do not use a mail client, use gmail mailbox. -- -aft

5 6

reload to memory is much slower and has problms after upgrade to 3.3.2 and using mem_join=1
by Uri Shacked 05 Dec '13

05 Dec '13

Hi, I am using MTREE and DIALPLAN modules to load lots of info to kamailio. (6 million rows). When kamailio was running with 3.2.1 (no mem_join=1 option), the used size was increasing but the process of loading the data was fast eanough. I upgraded to 3.3.2 and set mem_join=1. Now the loading process take about 10 time longer and sometimes stops kamailio from responding to traffic. Any ideas? Thanks, Uri

3 19

Considering to release v4.1.0 on Dec4, 2014
by Daniel-Constantin Mierla 04 Dec '13

04 Dec '13

Hello, I have few issues on my list to fix for 4.1 before the full release, but I consider one week being enough time. Therefore I plan to release 4.1.0 next Wednesday, Dec 4, 2014. If anyone would prefer a different plan, expose it on the mailing list for further discussions. Cheers, Daniel -- Daniel-Constantin Mierla - http://www.asipto.com http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda

1 4

"new_t: out_of_mem" errors, yet core.shmmem reports >60% shmmem free
by elactrum＠jamailca.com 04 Dec '13

04 Dec '13

Hi, I have a Kamailio 3.3.3 server that currently reports the following errors upon execution of t_relay() for certain initial INVITEs. daemon.err /usr/sbin/kamailio[26916]: ERROR: <core> [sip_msg_clone.c:505]: ERROR: sip_msg_cloner: cannot allocate memory daemon.err /usr/sbin/kamailio[26916]: ERROR: tm [t_lookup.c:1338]: ERROR: new_t: out of mem: daemon.err /usr/sbin/kamailio[26917]: ERROR: tm [t_lookup.c:1478]: ERROR: t_newtran: new_t failed I understand this error to be related to shared memory, based on [1]. However, sercmd reports normal shared memory utilization: # sercmd core.shmmem { total: 67108864 free: 43189728 used: 20505784 real_used: 23919136 max_used: 65948568 fragments: 36887 } These figures are quite similar to another server with the same configuration and Kamailio version, which is not reporting out-of-memory errors. # sercmd core.shmmem { total: 67108864 free: 40219536 used: 23241952 real_used: 26889328 max_used: 66306288 fragments: 37832 } I recently saw similar symptoms on a Kamailio 4.0.4 server, but Kamailio unfortunately crashed before I could get further details. In this case, I can consistently duplicate the problem with certain INVITEs. It seems that the failure is somehow related to the size of the SIP headers. For example, I have an INVITE from a Polycom phone which t_relay() routes successfully with 741 bytes of headers (total SIP length 1039 bytes). However, it seems that if I add one character to any of its SIP headers (742 bytes of headers; total SIP length 1039 bytes) the t_relay() will consistently fail. This binary doesn't have DBG_QM_MALLOC configured (I am working on getting it re-compiled). However, since I don't know what caused the problem, I would still like to get as much information as I can out of the running system. I have attached the output of mi_statistics, as well as mem_dump_pkg for the external UDP receivers and the ctl handler. Are there any other diagnostics that could be useful? -Andrew [1] http://www.kamailio.org/dokuwiki/doku.php/troubleshooting:faq#qwhat_does_er…

3 3

Kamailio for route traffic only
by driver 30 Nov '13

30 Nov '13

Hello, I have such infrastructure: Asterisk1 (provider 1) - IP1 Asterisk2 (provider 2) - IP2 Softphones on client computers with configured two IPs to two Asterisk servers. User has to manually switch between each server. I need to change this that user will have only one account configured (eg. Kamailio) and Kamailio will be used only to forward to Ast1 or Ast2 by previously defined rules. How is it possible? comp1 --------> Kamailio -------> Ast1 comp2 --------> Kamailio -------> Ast1 comp3 --------> Kamailio -------> Ast2 comp4 --------> Kamailio -------> Ast2 Thank you, Marcin

4 3

Jump to page:

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 November 2013