Hi list
i've updated to kamailio 4.3.4 , i work with push wake up config, but
kamailio now crash and display this messages
ar 1 19:38:43 proxy6-2 /usr/sbin/kamailio[21630]: WARNING: tm
[t_lookup.c:1476]: t_unref(): WARNING: script writer didn't release
transaction
Mar 1 19:38:43 proxy6-2 /usr/sbin/kamailio[21630]: WARNING: tm
[h_table.c:130]: free_cell_helper(): removed cell 0x7ff059882448 is still
linked in hash table (t_lookup.c:1486)
Mar 1 19:38:43 proxy6-2 snmpd[2204]: Connection from UDP:
[10.107.148.69]:52614->[10.107.148.66]
Mar 1 19:38:44 proxy6-2 kernel: [6727397.951325] kamailio[21649]: segfault
at 0 ip 00007ff0d92fbfb2 sp 00007fff15f54c90 error 6 in
tm.so[7ff0d92a3000+eb000]
Mar 1 19:38:44 proxy6-2 /usr/sbin/kamailio[21599]: WARNING: tm
[h_table.c:130]: free_cell_helper(): removed cell 0x7ff0598719e8 is still
linked in hash table (h_table.c:440)
Mar 1 19:38:44 proxy6-2 /usr/sbin/kamailio[21599]: WARNING: tm
[h_table.c:130]: free_cell_helper(): removed cell 0x7ff059877eb0 is still
linked in hash table (h_table.c:440)
i don't know what happend, but i guess is my push configuration, like the
message display at "t_lookup.c".
i got this in the configure file:
route[PUSHJOIN] {
if (!is_method("REGISTER"))
return;
$var(hjoin) = 0;
lock("$tU");
$var(hjoin) = $sht(vtp=>join::$tU);
$sht(vtp=>join::$tU) = $null;
unlock("$tU");
if($var(hjoin)==0)
return;
$var(id_index) = $(var(hjoin){s.select,0,:}{s.int});
$var(id_label) = $(var(hjoin){s.select,1,:}{s.int});
xdbg("resuming trasaction [$var(id_index):$var(id_label)] $tU
($var(hjoin))\n");
xlog("L_INFO","resuming trasaction [$var(id_index):$var(id_label)]
$tU ($var(hjoin))\n");
t_continue("$var(id_index)", "$var(id_label)","LL");
}
route[LL] {
lookup("location");
route(RELAY);
}
Hello everybody,
I am a new user of Kamailio (4.3.1), I am working with it since 1-2 months.
The thing that I'm trying to do is to build the following system:
same LAN
192.168.0.1
Alice
proprietary SIP Server
[Public_IP_X] ------------ [Public_IP_Y]
Kamailio [172.26.0.1] ---------- [172.26.0.1] with
192.168.0.1
registrar
Bob
Obviously Kamailio has to translate the local addresses of Alice and Bob,
e.g. to use the Nathelper module.
The module is doing well its job because the Contact headers are replaced
with the Public_IP_X when a REGISTER message is sent by Alice's or Bob's
sip phones (I am using Linphone and Zoiper as clients).
Once the incoming sip register was treated by Kamailio it is sent to the
proprietary SIP Server. The server sends 200 OK to Kamailio and the proxy
relays the message to the clients. So the sip registration for me it is OK.
But when it comes to initiate a call from Alice to Bob the things are not
as I expect it. The initial request INVITE sent from Alice goes to the sip
server but then the server instead of sending the INVITE for Bob through
Kamailio, it sends the message directly to Bob's device.
Does anyone knows how to "tell" to the sip server, using the SIP protocol,
that it must use the proxy?
The only thing I have in mind is to force Kamailio to replace the contact
of Alice and more precisely the host/ip address by the proxy's host/ip
address.
I tested this idea and the sip server did what I was expecting but for me
this is not a proper solution.
To do that I used this discussion -
http://opensips.org/pipermail/users/2010-October/014873.html
Thank you in advance for your attention !
Best regards,
Anton
Hi Kamailio,
We are using Kamailio V4.2.3 for our project and we are
trying to address the performance requirement. We have following queries
and need some inputs from Kamailio.
*Requirement :* CPU Utilization Limit to 70%, If the limit is crossed
Kamailio has to reject the Request.
And If it is within the limit Kamailio has to Process the Requests. (i.e.
Kamailio has to dynamically set and reset the policy based on CPU Load).
*Our Findings* : We have come across ratelimit module in Kamailio, we tried
using the same to address the requirement
but we see it is not dynamically setting and resetting the policy (once if
it starts rejecting then every time it rejects it, only if we restart the
kamailo it works)
*What we Need*: We need to know
1. Are we using the right module to address the above requirement ?
2. We are only using ratelimit, module, do we have to include any
other module along with ratelimit?
3. We are using FEEDBACK algorithm, is that OK ?
4. Setting “ modparam("ratelimit", "pipe", "3:FEEDBACK:70") “ , is
this correct ?
5. In ratelimit.c , function
static int pipe_push(struct sip_msg * msg, int id) {
*case* *PIPE_ALGO_FEEDBACK*:
*LM_DBG(**"drop_rate
[%d],hash[*pipes[id].counter][%d]\n"**,*drop_rate, hash[*pipes[id].*
*counter**])*;
ret = (hash[*pipes[id].counter % 100] < *drop_rate) ?
-1 : 1;
}
We are not able to understand the above line (
hash[*pipes[id].counter % 100]). Could you please elaborate.
6. Where are we lagging ?
Regards,
Prashanth
------------------------------
============================================================================================================================
Disclaimer: This message and the information contained herein is
proprietary and confidential and subject to the Tech Mahindra policy
statement, you may review the policy at
http://www.techmahindra.com/Disclaimer.html externally
http://tim.techmahindra.com/tim/disclaimer.html internally within
TechMahindra.
============================================================================================================================
Hello,
at Fosdem and other events this year, while meeting many of Kamailio
devs, the topic of what's next for Kamailio came into discussions, with
suggestions that after 4.4 it may be time for some major leap to 5.0.
I created a page where I collected the main ideas put on table so far -
rather unpolished draft, but eventually a good starting point:
* https://www.kamailio.org/wiki/devel/kamailio-5.0-design
Everyone is invited to add suggestions to the wiki page and/or discuss
here on mailing lists, what should be there in 5.0, what is good (to
keep) or bad (to remove) with current version, what is missing and it is
"must have", ...
Not to have a single long tread, for each new idea, start a new email
thread with subject prefixed by Kamailio 5.0. I think this impacts
users, not only devs, and their contribution is useful as well, so it
should be fine to discuss the ideas/concepts on sr-users. When it gets
to real implementation discussions, then it can be on sr-dev.
Cheers,
Daniel
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
Kamailio Advanced Training, Berlin, March 7-9, 2016 - http://www.asipto.com
I have done some more digging on websocket:closed event route.
In DB_ONLY mode, easy deregistration of a websocket UA at connection
close would require access in the event route to connection_id of the
closed connection.
The function that is run at the close has ws_connection_t argument:
static void wsconn_run_route(ws_connection_t *wsc)
ws_connection_t record has these two fields:
int id; /* id and id_hash are identical to the values */
unsigned id_hash; /* for the corresponding TCP/TLS connection */
Is id the same thing as what is stored in connection_id field of
location table?
If it is, may be its value could be made available to the event route in
a pseudo variable.
-- Juha
