sr-users July 2015

sr-users@lists.kamailio.org

86 participants
152 discussions

Errors when starting Kamailio with Websocket Module
by Babu Raja 07 Aug '15

07 Aug '15

Hello, I incuded the module for websocket into my Kamailio 4.3 on my Ubuntu 12.04 server environement. For installing the packages and websocket I followed the instructions from the following link: http://www.kamailio.org/wiki/packages/debs http://nil.uniza.sk/sip/kamailio/configuring-kamailio-4x-websocket After starting the Kamailio I got 26 errors like: can not find command "handle_ruri_alias" or Syntax errors for: route[REGISTRAR] => square brackets.. ($du == "") => parameter "==" unknown.. the whole error log I will paste later.. Can anyone help me?

3 4

RLS Notify sent to wrong transport
by M S 07 Aug '15

07 Aug '15

Hi, I have a Kamailio v4.3.0 with SVN Rev. c6aa95 running an RLS based presence setup. Everything works fine when end-user has UDP transport, however, if user has TCP or TLS transport then i aggregated NOTIFY sent by RLS gives send error, -- WARNING: <core> [forward.c:231]: get_send_socket2(): protocol/port mismatch (forced tls:X.X.X.X:5061, to udp:Y.Y.Y.Y:12345) -- (X.X.X.X is server IP and Y.Y.Y.Y is end user IP). Not sure if it is configuration issue or some bug, so posting it to both mailing list. Please help. Thank you.

2 8

Kamailio v4.2.6 Released
by Daniel-Constantin Mierla 06 Aug '15

06 Aug '15

Hello, Kamailio SIP Server v4.2.6 stable release is out. This is a maintenance release of the previous stable branch, 4.2, that includes fixes since release of v4.2.5. There is no change to database schema or configuration language structure that you have to do on installations of v4.2.x. Deployments running previous v4.x.x versions are strongly recommended to be upgraded to v4.2.6 (or to 4.3.x series). For more details about version 4.2.6 (including links and guidelines to download the tarball or from GIT repository), visit: * http://www.kamailio.org/w/2015/07/kamailio-v4-2-6-released/ RPM, Debian/Ubuntu packages will be available soon as well. Note: the latest stable branch is 4.3, at this moment with its latest release v4.3.1. See more details about it at: * http://www.kamailio.org/w/kamailio-v4-3-0-release-notes/ Cheers, Daniel -- Daniel-Constantin Mierla http://twitter.com/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda

2 3

Question about how location server_id is supposed to be used.
by Ding Ma 05 Aug '15

05 Aug '15

Looking for some doc that describes how the new columns in 4.3.x location table is supposed to be used. Can find some email discussions about this, but seems no formal doc exists. Would appreciate if someone can provide an explanation. Thanks

3 3

www.kamailio.org unreachable via ipv6
by Daniel Tryba 03 Aug '15

03 Aug '15

(www.)kamailio.org is unreachable at this time (the whole morning) on 2a00:d60:0:400::2. ipv4 is responsing. Never noticed whether connectivity via ipv6 was working in the past or this is new and misconfigured.

2 1

Announcement: Kamailio is now systemd-rtc-server
by Alex Balashov 03 Aug '15

03 Aug '15

For immediate release: ATLANTA, GA (1 April 2015)--Evariste Systems LLC, an Atlanta-based software vendor specialising in Kamailio-based service delivery solutions for the VoIP ITSP market, is pleased to announce that it, in collaboration with Red Hat Software and Ringfree Communications, has finalised the absorption of the Kamailio SIP Server into the 'systemd' system management platform for Linux. The new component shall be called 'systemd-rtc-server', or 'Systemd Real-Time Communication Server'. Alex Balashov, principal of Evariste and leader of the tri-vendor collaboration effort, will officially announce the handover of the reigns of the Kamailio project to the personal leadership of Lennart Poettering at the upcoming Systemd Real Time Communications World conference, to be held in Berlin on 27-29 May of this year. John Knight, Director of GNOME 3 Integration and part-time usability consultant at Ringfree Communications, based in Hendersonville, North Carolina,was quick to summarise the triumphs of the long-standing integration effort. Remarked Knight: "The industry has recognised for years that a SIP proxy is a basic building block in the 'init' subsystem of any Linux host. In this age of multimedia communication with voice and video, it was a travesty that systemd handled time synchronisation, network configuration, login management, logging, and console, but not SIP message routing." Sean McCord, a veteran partner at Atlanta-based integrator CyCORE & Docker, was quick to concur: "SIP calls are much easier to troubleshoot with binary logs. Combined with packet captures of TLS-encrypted WebRTC calls, systemd-journald is the ultimate call setup troubleshooting methodology of the responsive, kinetic enterprise." To support the integration of Kamailio into the ecosystem of every major Linux distribution, Evariste has released new 'dbus_api' and 'pulseaudio' modules for the project. Balashov stated, "We fully expect to use the D-Bus API to achieve gnome-session integration with systemd-rtc-server-usrloc, but we aren't going to leave Windows users behind; KamailioSvcHost.exe will support Domain Controller policies for G.722 in Active Directory forests." Despite an aggressive delivery timeline by the tri-vendor consortium behind systemd-rtc-server, industry commentators have widely lambasted the fact that it took so long for Kamailio to become integrated into systemd. Fred Posner, solutions architect at The Palner Group in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, recently wrote in a widely-publicised blog post: "sr-dev have been keeping their heads in the sand for too long. For years now, it has been completely obvious and self-evident to anyone with half a brain that all kinds of VoIP software should be included in systemd. It's a basic building block of the whole OS, having absorbed functionality previously provided by all kinds of packages like util-linux and wireless-tools." John Knight of Ringfree accepted the criticism readily, but advocated a forward-thinking orientation focused on breaking with the uncertainty of the past: "In the absence of a SIP component for routing calls to the PSTN, some people thought, 'systemd has no clear direction apart from the whims of its developers, and is a perpetually moving goal post.' Well, a SIP server should put an end to that whole discussion; that's exactly what was missing, and now that we have systemd-rtc-server, we've eliminated all doubts about the coherence, conceptual integrity and finality of systemd." -- Alex Balashov | Principal | Evariste Systems LLC 303 Perimeter Center North, Suite 300 Atlanta, GA 30346 United States Tel: +1-800-250-5920 (toll-free) / +1-678-954-0671 (direct) Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/, http://www.csrpswitch.com/

5 8

Check if user is registered before reply is routed
by Dmytro Bogovych 01 Aug '15

01 Aug '15

Greetings. Sorry for previous false letter. I want to check if user is registered before reply is routed to its target user agent. Imho it should be like this: onreply_route[MANAGE_REPLY] { if ($rm=="INVITE") { if (registered("location", $ru)) { # Do job - pause for 15 seconds and give chance to reregister } } } But kamailio complains on registered function 0(6274) ERROR: <core> [cfg.y:3295]: yyparse(): misused command registered 0(6274) : <core> [cfg.y:3439]: yyerror_at(): parse error in config file /usr/local/etc/kamailio/kamailio.cfg, line 1121, column 35: Command cannot be used in the block Documentation confirms - registered() function can be used in REQUEST_ROUTE and FAILURE_ROUTE only. Is it possible to check if user is registered when reply is processed in scripts? Thank you!

4 3

Interpretation of Contact header
by Joachim Büchse 30 Jul '15

30 Jul '15

Good day, I’m experiencing some problems with our VoiP providers handling of REGISTER requests. We are using a Gigaset PRO N720 as UAC behind a Juniper SSG 140 with SIP-Alg enabled. This setup kind of works with UDP but our provider wants us to use TCP. With TCP enforced incoming calls don’t work. I’ve done some wire tracing and to me it seems that the providers configuration is to blame, but then - there are many RFCs out there and many NAT and UAC bug workarounds. Anyway, I wanted to get the opinion of “the" experts about how the requests send to the UAS SHOULD be correctly interpreted. The REGISTER requests/responses look like this (outside of the firewall): Protocol TCP! client port 19091 <-> server port 5060 REGISTER sip:pbx.peoplefone.ch SIP/2.0 Via: SIP/2.0/TCP 212.126.160.92:6717;rport;branch=z9hG4bKc1375589832468de63a719eac31156ec From: "Michel" <sip:90780408050@pbx.peoplefone.ch>;tag=2153084485 To: "Michel" <sip:90780408050@pbx.peoplefone.ch> Call-ID: 2825358480@10_10_128_10 CSeq: 1 REGISTER Contact: <sip:90780408050@212.126.160.92:6717;transport=tcp> Max-Forwards: 70 User-Agent: N720-DM-PRO/70.089.00.000.000 Expires: 180 Allow: INVITE, ACK, CANCEL, BYE, OPTIONS, INFO, REFER, SUBSCRIBE, NOTIFY Content-Length: 0 SIP/2.0 401 Unauthorized Via: SIP/2.0/TCP 212.126.160.92:6717;rport=19091;branch=z9hG4bKc1375589832468de63a719eac31156ec From: "Michel" <sip:90780408050@pbx.peoplefone.ch>;tag=2153084485 To: "Michel" <sip:90780408050@pbx.peoplefone.ch>;tag=a0440f545f39b2694d387b475a5f6bc9.b8fc Call-ID: 2825358480@10_10_128_10 CSeq: 1 REGISTER WWW-Authenticate: Digest realm="pbx.peoplefone.ch", nonce="VNqJBVTah9m57ZGGs8b5XCTM3GyaExDy" Server: kamailio (3.2.1 (x86_64/linux)) Content-Length: 0 REGISTER sip:pbx.peoplefone.ch SIP/2.0 Via: SIP/2.0/TCP 212.126.160.92:6717;rport;branch=z9hG4bK9c27afea96e2af4baab2f8d144a588e0 From: "Michel" <sip:90780408050@pbx.peoplefone.ch>;tag=2153084485 To: "Michel" <sip:90780408050@pbx.peoplefone.ch> Call-ID: 2825358480@10_10_128_10 CSeq: 2 REGISTER Contact: <sip:90780408050@212.126.160.92:6717;transport=tcp> Authorization: Digest username="90780408050", realm="pbx.peoplefone.ch", uri="sip:pbx.peoplefone.ch", nonce="VNqJBVTah9m57ZGGs8b5XCTM3GyaExDy", response="764f371a08d258157a249f8d1b852514" Max-Forwards: 70 User-Agent: N720-DM-PRO/70.089.00.000.000 Expires: 180 Allow: INVITE, ACK, CANCEL, BYE, OPTIONS, INFO, REFER, SUBSCRIBE, NOTIFY Content-Length: 0 SIP/2.0 200 OK Via: SIP/2.0/TCP 212.126.160.92:6717;rport=19091;branch=z9hG4bK9c27afea96e2af4baab2f8d144a588e0 From: "Michel" <sip:90780408050@pbx.peoplefone.ch>;tag=2153084485 To: "Michel" <sip:90780408050@pbx.peoplefone.ch>;tag=a0440f545f39b2694d387b475a5f6bc9.6bda Call-ID: 2825358480@10_10_128_10 CSeq: 2 REGISTER Contact: <sip:90780408050@212.126.160.92:6717;transport=tcp>;q=0;expires=180;received="sip:212.126.160.92:19091;transport=TCP" Server: kamailio (3.2.1 (x86_64/linux)) Content-Length: 0 The ip:port the firewall is sending those requests from is ip 212.126.160.92 port 19091. So this does NOT match the port from the Contact header. For TCP this seems rather logical to me, as one cant be listening on a TCP port and use it for sending at the same time. The UAC closes this “register connection” with TCP FIN after the register, and so does the firewall. However unfortunately subsequent requests from the provider (ie UAS) come in on port 19091 (not port 6717 from the Contact header) and the firewall simply drops them. Observations: - the server does NOT include received=212.126.160.92 in the Via of the reponse. According to RFC3581 this is mandatory when rport is present in the request, so this is probably an error in the server. - the server does include received="sip:212.126.160.92:19091;transport=TCP” in the Contact of the response. I didnt see this in any RFC (which means nothing;-) but it could be an error. - after the client received the 200 OK it closes the TCP connection. - the server tries several times to re-contact the client (incoming TCP SYN). However not on port 6717 (defined in the Contact header) but on port 19091 (where the REGISTER came from). RFC3581 defines special behaviour when “rport” is defined in the request (i.e. response should go to the same port the request came from) - however it’s not so clear if this should apply to subsequent (INVITE/OPTIONS) requests from the server to the client. Those are strictly spoken not replies (or are they?). RFC5626 defines that a “proxy” should keep track of the flows over which it received a registration and send requests over the same flow. It is not clear if RFC5626 should be applied. The RFC5626 defines that a UAC includes an “ob” parameter in the Contact field if it whishes further requests over the same flow. Also the RFC mandates a client to add a "reg-id=x" in the Contact field. Both are not the case here, so in short I think RFC5626 should NOT be applied. In which case conecting to the originating port (instead of the Contact port) would be a server error. So in short and if I interpret the RFCs correctly, the client is reachable and should be contacted on Transport: TCP IP: 212.126.160.92 Port: 6717 If anyone who lives and breathes SIP could enlighten me if the UAS is right to call back on 19091 instead of 6717 I would really appreciate it;-)) Best regards, Joachim

3 4

Issue with ACK behind NAT
by Alberto Sagredo 30 Jul '15

30 Jul '15

I have Kamailio in a local network with RTPPROXY and NAT MANAGE I have seen an issue with ACK as show when Asterisk sends ACK to Kamailio, it sends to advertised Address instead to Kamailio IP address. What could i add to solve this? route[WITHINDLG] { if (has_totag()) { # sequential request withing a dialog should # take the path determined by record-routing if (loose_route()) { if (is_method("BYE")) { setflag(FLT_ACC); # do accounting ... setflag(FLT_ACCFAILED); # ... even if the transaction fails dlg_manage(); } if ( is_method("ACK") ) { # ACK is forwarded statelessy route(NATMANAGE); } route(RELAY); } else { if (is_method("SUBSCRIBE") && uri == myself) { # in-dialog subscribe requests route(PRESENCE); exit; } if ( is_method("ACK") ) { if ( t_check_trans() ) { # no loose-route, but stateful ACK; # must be an ACK after a 487 # or e.g. 404 from upstream server t_relay(); exit; } else { # ACK without matching transaction ... ignore and discard exit; } } sl_send_reply("404","Not here"); } exit; } } BR

2 14

Re: [SR-Users] Memory Issue while accessing $rb (prakash)
by Surendra.P 30 Jul '15

30 Jul '15

Hi Prakash, Specify the more private memory with -M option, while running kamailio Like -M 64 :-) Regards @surendra

1 0

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
...
16
Older →

Jump to page:

2026

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 July 2015