sr-users October 2017

sr-users@lists.kamailio.org

78 participants
108 discussions

Re: [SR-Users] Kamailio for Unified Communication
by Angel Elena 31 Oct '17

31 Oct '17

kamailio is a "proxy" server.... this features may be added by a media-server... freeswitch, asterisk, seems. You can put kamailio as "sip proxy" and you can add these services behind kamailio proxy -------------------------------- Ángel Elena Medina _o) craem(a)craem.net / \\ http://blog.craem.net _(___V @craem_ www.linkedin.com/in/angel-elena-medina -------------------------------- Zarafa Webapp. -----Mensaje original----- De: Jayanth Acharya <jayachar88(a)gmail.com> Enviado: Mar 31-10-2017 10:40 Asunto: [SR-Users] Kamailio for Unified Communication Para: Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List <sr-users(a)lists.sip-router.org>; > Hi, > > Can Kamailio be used to provide following broad-type of services ? > > 1. Unified Communication services > 2. Contact Center services > 3. Instant Messaging / Chat services > 4. Voicemail service > 5. Presence aware communication services > 6. Desktop sharing service > > For many/some of the above, I'd expect back2back user-agent capabilities to be > mandatory, and if I am not mistaken Kamailio doesn't support B2BUA mode. Or are > there some modules that may be used for this purpose ? > > thanks, > Jay > > _______________________________________________ > > Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List > > sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org > > https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users > > > >

1 0

Kamailio for Unified Communication
by Jayanth Acharya 31 Oct '17

31 Oct '17

Hi, Can Kamailio be used to provide following broad-type of services ? 1. Unified Communication services 2. Contact Center services 3. Instant Messaging / Chat services 4. Voicemail service 5. Presence aware communication services 6. Desktop sharing service For many/some of the above, I'd expect back2back user-agent capabilities to be mandatory, and if I am not mistaken Kamailio doesn't support B2BUA mode. Or are there some modules that may be used for this purpose ? thanks, Jay

1 0

Reinvite/ACK race
by Alex Balashov 30 Oct '17

30 Oct '17

Hi, I've got a scenario like so: UA A -----> Kamailio P ----> UA B 1. UA A initiates call through Kamailio P; 2. Dialog is established and confirmed, with Record-Route; 3. UA B sends reinvite #1 through P to A; 4. UA B sends 2xx reply; 5. UA B sends end-to-end ACK for reinvite #1 and almost simultaneously sends reinvite #2. The temporal delta is between reinvite #2 and ACK for reinvite #1 on the wire is 3 ms. So, the result — for all kinds of stochastic processing and userspace scheduling type reasons — is that the reinvite is forwarded first, before the ACK. That leads to a 500 / 491 scenario UA A. The cause, as we all know, is that Kamailio's worker threads are loosely coupled, and incoming UDP datagrams are distributed directly by the kernel. Is there any general guidance on what to do with these scenarios? I looked at RFC 5407 § 3.1.4, which appears to describe a similar, but not identical scenario involving an initial INVITE and subsequent reinvite. As far as I can tell, the recommendation in that standard is "space the messaging out more in time". Switching to TCP would presumably help, since any given flow would involve a single connection to a single worker thread and the transport would guarantee ordering. However, that's not really feasible in this implementation for a host of reasons. I know Kamailio has some config locking primitives, but I am extremely wary of complex synchronisation on dialog-identifying attributes, particularly if there is a possibility that such locks could stall a worker perpetually. Any other thoughts welcome! Cheers, -- Alex -- Alex Balashov | Principal | Evariste Systems LLC Tel: +1-706-510-6800 / +1-800-250-5920 (toll-free) Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/, http://www.csrpswitch.com/

2 2

unexpected behavior of save from registrar module
by Vasiliy Ganchev 30 Oct '17

30 Oct '17

Hi, community! I have in my Kamailio script following block (while REGISTER processing, after auth succeed): ..... /* Save to usrloc */ lock("LOCATION_LOCK"); if (!save("location")) { unlock("LOCATION_LOCK"); sl_reply_error(); exit(); } unlock("LOCATION_LOCK"); ...... According to module documentation - if "save" - failed (for any reason) - I expected the control to be returned to the script with error code "-1" But, there are cases - when this does not happen - which lead to deadlock for workers processing REGISTERs (I never unlock("LOCATION_LOCK")): - module answers with internal error - and return 0 from "save" function: https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/blob/master/src/modules/registrar/save… - line 1013 My use case happened due to malfunctioning device that in some moment of time: - send REGISTER update - kamailio answers 200OK - device retransmit the same REGISTER (same CSeq) - during 20 seconds (hardcoded value in registrar module) - kamailio answers 200OK (and everything is ok) - if retransmission continue more than 20s - kamailio answered 400 Bad request, and did not return control to script (as a result I had no chance to unlock("LOCATION_LOCK") from code above) Tested it on kamailio 4.2.5 and 5.0.3. as for me, possible solutions are: - return -1 instead of 0 from "save" by default - if there are some reasons not to do this - we should change documentation, and explicitly mention that there are cases - when script execution is stopped. thanks in advance! cheers -- Sent from: http://sip-router.1086192.n5.nabble.com/Users-f3.html

3 5

sanity passes invalid uri
by Juha Heinanen 30 Oct '17

30 Oct '17

I noticed that K 5.0 sanity() test passes uri that contains ` (back quote) character. Config: modparam("sanity", "default_checks", 1024) /* URI checks */ modparam("sanity", "uri_checks", 3) /* RURI, From */ xlog("L_INFO", "Checking $ru\n"); if (!sanity_check()) xlog("L_INFO", "Check failed\n"); else xlog("L_INFO", "Check passed\n"); Syslog: Oct 27 17:17:38 lohi /usr/bin/sip-proxy[31946]: INFO: Checking sip:jh@te`st.fi Oct 27 17:17:38 lohi /usr/bin/sip-proxy[31946]: INFO: Check passed According to RFC3261: hostname = *( domainlabel "." ) toplabel [ "." ] domainlabel = alphanum / alphanum *( alphanum / "-" ) alphanum Is this a bug or am I missing something? -- Juha

2 2

Remove all cpecial characters (\n,\t etc)from xml body
by Yuriy Gorlichenko 30 Oct '17

30 Oct '17

Hi. I building external presentity service for web based phones Main trouble that i have at the xml body of PUBLISH message \n \t characters and because of it can't set body as string to the redis So I trying to find a way to remove special characters form the xml body for get oneline string instead of multiline I use native .cfg file for now and, unfortunattely, can not use lua or phyton I tried $var(body)=$(rb{s.rm,$var(RemoveThisStaff)}) where $var(RemoveThisStaff) = "\n" and "\t" but it was unsuccesfull. Maybe someone will help to kno how to do it.

2 2

Issue with sipcapture
by Nathan Leyton 28 Oct '17

28 Oct '17

Hi There I am new to Kamailio and have just installed and got it up and running as a sipcapture node. It is working well and logging all the hep sip traffic in my homer database. I have an issue with rtcp extracted to the msg column is not json. It is some kind of weird encoded string (not base64), this is not readable by homer in any way. When I use nonsip_hook I am able to extract the json from the hep and put it in the msg field. However when I return 1 from the hep route on sip to go back to main route I get parsing errors like so on all the sip messages:- Oct 27 15:03:41 ip-172-31-19-41 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[22518]: ERROR: sipcapture [sipcapture.c:2711]: nosip_hep_msg(): couldn't parse sip message Oct 27 15:03:41 ip-172-31-19-41 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[22518]: ERROR: <core> [core/receive.c:186]: receive_msg(): core parsing of SIP message failed (178.78.120.2:44389/1) Oct 27 15:03:41 ip-172-31-19-41 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[22518]: ERROR: <core> [core/parser/msg_parser.c:331]: parse_headers(): bad header field [(null)] Oct 27 15:03:41 ip-172-31-19-41 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[22518]: WARNING: <core> [core/receive.c:193]: receive_msg(): parsing relevant headers failed Oct 27 15:03:41 ip-172-31-19-41 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[22517]: ERROR: <core> [core/parser/parse_fline.c:257]: parse_first_line(): parse_first_line: bad message (offset: 0) Oct 27 15:03:41 ip-172-31-19-41 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[22517]: ERROR: <core> [core/parser/msg_parser.c:675]: parse_msg(): ERROR: parse_msg: message=<HEP3#002,> It never actually enters the main route. With nonsip_hook off, I enter the main route and all my sip messages are there in homer, just missing rtcp as the data is a weird encoded string. Hope someone can help Thanks Nathan -- Nathan Leyton / Chief Technology Officer nathan(a)callhandling.co.uk / 07482 917 412 Call Handling Ltd Office: 0333 321 0888 / Fax: 0333 321 0877 Bakerloo Chambers304 Edgware Road, London, W2 1DY www.callhandling.co.uk [image: htmlsig.com] <https://htmlsig.com/t/0000001BREBFR>

2 1

fix_nated_contact and IPv6
by Sebastian Damm 27 Oct '17

27 Oct '17

Hi, I'm trying to set up a Kamailio (4.1.3) server which converts between IPv6 and IPv4. Everything looks pretty good. Now I have a test client which sends packets via IPv6, but in contact header, SDP etc. there are still IPv4 addresses. (This comes from some converting from v4 to v6 earlier.) Thus, Kamailio tries to do a fix_nated_contact(). But after fixing, the Contact URI is wrong. Example: inbound Contact: <sip:bob@192.168.8.132> outbound Contact: <sip:bob@1234:1234:0:1234:0:0:0:2> The correct way of transforming the Contact URI would be: Contact: <sip:bob@[1234:1234:0:1234:0:0:0:2]> This incorrect Contact URI doesn't hurt first, but when the called party wants to hang up the call, it addresses the URI from Contact header, and Kamailio can't parse the Request URI: Jan 22 12:03:48 router /usr/sbin/kamailio[21309]: ERROR: pv [pv_core.c:304]: pv_get_ruri_attr(): failed to parse the R-URI Jan 22 12:03:48 router /usr/sbin/kamailio[21309]: ERROR: rr [loose.c:934]: loose_route(): failed to parse Request URI Jan 22 12:03:48 router /usr/sbin/kamailio[21309]: ERROR: domain [domain.c:140]: is_uri_host_local(): error while parsing R-URI Is this a bug in the nathelper module? Was it never meant to handle IPv6 addresses? Or do I understand something wrong? Best Regards, Sebastian

4 4

Too Long Contact URI
by Soltanici Ilie 27 Oct '17

27 Oct '17

Hi All, I cannot Register some softphones because of too long Contact header when using TCP protocol. Using UDP - everything works ok and this is how the Contact header looking: sip:XXXXXXXXX@XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX:64773;rinstance=6502234ef65ea6e7 But, switching to the TCP i'm receiving the following warning: WARNING: registrar [sip_msg.c:194]: check_contacts(): contact uri is too long:[sip:XXXXXXXXX@192.168.0.1:60471;rinstance=bf4d7aae0f099bf0;transport=tcp] How can i solve this issue? Thank You.

1 1

How to send OPTIONS message by kamailio server
by 吴妙灵 27 Oct '17

27 Oct '17

Hello, I don't know how to send OPTIONS message from kamailio server to user client,can you give me same advice? Cheers, Ada

4 3

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 October 2017