sr-users August 2017

sr-users@lists.kamailio.org

89 participants
144 discussions

Re: [SR-Users] t_drop_replies not working with t_suspend in failure route

by Huber Andreas

Hi, We’re still using kamailio 4.4 but we’ll be migrating to 5.0 soon. Cool so it will be fixed when we migrate ! Thanks, Andreas From: sr-users [mailto:sr-users-bounces@lists.kamailio.org] On Behalf Of Federico Cabiddu Sent: vendredi 12 mai 2017 11:56 To: Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List Subject: Re: [SR-Users] t_drop_replies not working with t_suspend in failure route Hi, which version are you using? A similar case had been reported some months ago and it should be fixed in 5.0. Regards, Federico On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 11:44 AM, Huber Andreas <andreas.huber(a)nagra.com<mailto:andreas.huber@nagra.com>> wrote: Hello, We have a use case where we suspend a transaction in a failure_route to give UEs that might be woken by a push notification more time to REGISTER and join the INVITE. We’d like to drop the previous branches in this case. I tried using t_drop_replies() but it has no effect. The doc states that t_drop_replies() is only working if a new branch is added. And from my understanding t_suspend() adds a new branch. But is it possible that t_drop_replies() cannot be used with t_suspend()? Or am I missing something? Kind Regards, Andreas _______________________________________________ Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org<mailto:sr-users@lists.kamailio.org> https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users

3 years, 3 months

need help with RTPProxy in bridged mode

by Grant Bagdasarian

Hello, I'm using RTPproxy for the first time in bridged mode and I can't get kamailio/rtpproxy to rewrite the c parameter to the correct public ip address of kamailio. The setup is as following: Carrier ------[fiber]------ Kamailio ---------[lan]--------- Freeswitch Kamailio is listening on two interfaces: 1) Private: 172.0.0.1 2) Public: 192.168.0.1 (since we have a dedicated fiber with our carrier, this is its public address) Freeswitch is listening on: 1) 172.0.0.2 Carrier is on: 1) 10.0.0.1 I've started an rtpproxy instance on the Kamailio box using: rtpproxy -s udp:127.0.0.1:7721 -u rtpproxy rtpproxy -p /var/run/rtpproxy/rtpproxy.pid -l 192.168.0.1 172.0.0.1 I've played around with rtpproxy_manage() and the various flags (ie, ei), but I can't get kamailio to set the correct public IP when the 200 OK has to be sent back to the carrier. It always sets it to its private address, instead of its public address. I'm using Kamailio 4.2 with sippy/rtpproxy 2.0. Could someone please point me into the right direction? Thanks! Grant

4 years, 8 months

rtpproxy does not response, disable it

by Zodiac

Dear friends, I am working on a program on Kamailio and rtpengine proxy. I am wondering whether can I set Kamailio and rtpengine daemon on different physical machines. For example, I set Kamailio on a machine with IP address:10.109.247.80, and launch rtpengine daemon on another machine with interface parameter as 10.109.247.90 and ng port 7723. I set parameter in Kamailio.cfg with modparam(“rtpengine”, “rtpengine_sock”, “udp:10.109.247.90:7723”). Unfortunately I got debug message like this: ERROR: rtpengine [rtpengine.c:1710]: send_rtpp_command(): can't send command to a RTP proxy ERROR: rtpengine [rtpengine.c:1746]: send_rtpp_command(): proxy <udp:10.109.247.90:7723> does not respond, disable it ERROR: rtpengine [rtpengine.c:1616]: rtpp_test(): proxy did not respond to ping And, I also tried to set Kamailio and rtpengine daemon in a same machine,and use modparam(“rtpengine”, “rtpengine_sock”, “udp:localhost:7723”). And Kamailio can work functionally under this situation. rtpengine daemon can receive ping message from Kamailio and rtpengine daemon can work as suspected. So for the later case, is it supposed that Kamailio be in the same machine with same localhost address? Otherwise, what’s the reason for my ERROR? ------------------------------------ 北京邮电大学网络技术研究院网络与交换技术国家重点实验室田军 +86 18810315790 mozillafire(a)bupt.edu.cn ------------------------------------

4 years, 11 months

tcp Free fragment not found

by Diego Nadares

Hi guys! We have four a scripts that sends dlg.list command to kamailio through xmlrpc. They are not executed simultaneously. Sometimes, we are getting the following errors: fm_search_defrag(): fm_search_defrag(0x7f212c25a000, 5273984); Free fragment not found!2017-05-26T13:54:20.438736-03:00 drwsip02 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[19833]: ERROR: <core> [mem/f_malloc.c:498]: fm_malloc(): fm_malloc(0x7f212c25a000, 5273984) called from core: tcp_main.c: tcpconn_new(957), module: core; Free fragment not found!2017-05-26T13:54:20.439101-03:00 drwsip02 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[19833]: ERROR: <core> [tcp_main.c:959]: tcpconn_new(): mem. allocation failure2017-05-26T13:54:20.439344-03:00 drwsip02 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[19833]: ERROR: <core> [tcp_main.c:3985]: handle_new_connect(): tcpconn_new failed, closing socket I all ready increased this two variables: tcp_conn_wq_max=30000000 tcp_rd_buf_size=5273226 How can I see how much memory xmlrpc is using? Any advice will be appreciated. Thanks in advance! Diego

6 years, 2 months

Kamailio Behind TCP Load Balancer

by Colin Morelli

Hey all, I'm looking to put Kamailio behind a TCP load balancer that is SIP-unaware. My application is deployed in AWS and I'm tying to place Kamailio behind an ELB. For the most part, everything is fine. For my specific implementation I'm disabling UDP as a signaling transport and using only TLS. This enables me to not have to worry about a SIP-aware LB at the edge because replies to an incoming request will be sent over the existing established TCP socket (avoiding any crazy routing requirements). However - this poses an issue with source addresses. Does Kamailio support anything like the proxy protocol ( http://www.haproxy.org/download/1.5/doc/proxy-protocol.txt) for getting TCP stream information from a load balancer? Do I need to go back to exposing it directly to the world so that I can get source addresses? Thanks, Colin

6 years, 6 months

Kamailio Websocket Questions

by Nagorny, Dimitry

Hi List, two questions regarding Kamailio Websockets: 1. How do I send INVITE request TO the listening Websocket? I usually used for UDP/TCP/TLS these format, but somehow this is not working for Websocket because it gets in an endless loop: if ($rU=~"^(\+|00|0)?[1-9][0-9]{4,20}$") { $ru = "sip:" + $rU + "@" + $sel(cfg_get.pstn.gw_ip) + ";user=phone;transport=udp"; force_send_socket(udp:MY_EXTERN_IP:MY_EXTERN_PORT); rtpengine_offer("internal trust-address RTP AVP"); route(RELAY); exit; } 2. Why do I get these errors every time my Websocket Client is registering, but it still works and DB is inserted with registered location: ERROR: <core> [parser/parse_fline.c:257]: parse_first_line(): parse_first_line: bad message (offset: 22) ERROR: <core> [parser/msg_parser.c:690]: parse_msg(): ERROR: parse_msg: message=<HTTP/1.1 101 Switching Protocols#015#012Sia: SIP/2.0/TCP 10.250.5.17:51283#015#012Sec-WebSocket-Protocol: sip#015#012Upgrade: websocket#015#012Connection: upgrade#015#012Sec-WebSocket-Accept: 6uLXlD/aBrzu/j3PYP3DWO7rvLE=#015#012Server: kamailio (4.3.5 (x86_64/linux))#015#012Content-Length: 0#015#012#015#012> I am using Kamailio 4.3.5 + CentOS 7.2. I appreciate every help I can get. Best Regards Dimitry Nagorny Trainee

6 years, 8 months

Re: [SR-Users] How to determine correct port to set in record-route header

by Pranathi Venkatayogi

Any help? From: Pranathi Venkatayogi Sent: Monday, January 23, 2017 2:35 PM To: 'Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List' <sr-users(a)lists.sip-router.org> Subject: How to determine correct port to set in record-route header Hi, I am using Kamailio behind NAT, unable to figure how to make it put “public ip” in Record-route header, I am manually inserting the hard-coded header myself as below. However now I am having trouble choosing the right port number in all scenarios. $var(dstPort) = 5061; if (dst_port==5060) { $var(dstPort) = 5060; } insert_hf("Record-Route: <sip:MY_PUBLICIP_ADDR:$var(dstPort);transport=tls;lr;nat=yes>\r\n", "Record-Route"); In one scenario I see the conflicting port numbers in “via” header vs “Record route”. The ACK is being set to port 5060 based on Record route header and is not being received by the callee. 2017-01-23 14:52:49.970233 [blink.exe 2780]: SENDING: Packet 11, +0:00:36.411867 10.0.27.108:58217 -(SIP over TLS)-> 172.31.211.31:5061 SIP/2.0 180 Ringing Via: SIP/2.0/TLS 63.149.103.72:5061;received=172.31.211.31;branch=z9hG4bK4799.7067bd2a48063748a4c353fa408eaefa.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 10.0.16.52;rport=5060;branch=z9hG4bK4799.935a27c6ef5ad112225964cbe7c1be44.0;i=2 Via: SIP/2.0/TLS 10.11.200.12:51793;rport=51793;received=10.11.200.12;branch=z9hG4bKPj49f6aeca3f9b4155ab4c5304b544aa4d;alias Record-Route: <sip:63.149.103.72:5060;transport=tls;lr;nat=yes> Record-Route: <sip:10.0.16.52:5061;transport=tls;lr;nat=yes> Call-ID: 09ce10efa6a946bf9445ccc21857393e From: "cust1" <sip:cust1@devtranslation.sms-test.cyracom.com>;tag=95082caabecc42548c2fec5ccd29e5de To: <sip:spanish@translation.sms-test.cyracom.com>;tag=ec365cc8489b48a7bc5725d21b7d97a1 CSeq: 17422 INVITE Server: Blink 3.0.0 (Windows) Contact: <sip:20745891@10.0.27.108:58216;transport=tls> Allow: SUBSCRIBE, NOTIFY, PRACK, INVITE, ACK, BYE, CANCEL, UPDATE, MESSAGE, REFER Content-Length: 0 Questions: 1. How can I let in-built record-route function automatically choose “public ip” so I can get rid of my manual insertion altogether. 2. If no option, what is the right way to choose the port on which packet is being received, so it is same as what is on “VIA”. 3. Any other pointers to improve the logic here?

6 years, 9 months

rtjson + uac + event - OK, ACK and BYE display name not updated

by Diego Nadares

Hi Guys, We are modifying "from" and "to" headers with rtjson module via a json struct. It works fine in INVITE, TRYING, RINGING and OK but not in the following messages. Kamailio It's changing ONLY "from" and "to" URI BUT NOT the DISPLAY NAME. I think it's the tm module but I can't figure out how to confirm this. Maybe I need to configure something else in my cfg or could it be a bug? My json struct that is handled by rtjson module response.routing = "serial"; //response.routing = "parallel"; response.routes = []; response.routes[0] = {}; response.routes[0].uri = "sip:1111111111@172.16.213.31:5060"; response.routes[0].headers = { // Headers to be modified "from": { "display": "1111111111", "uri": "sip:111111111@172.16.213.38" }, "to": { "display": "2222222222", "uri": "sip:2222222222@172.16.213.38" }, }; response.routes[0].headers.extra = {};//"X-Hdr-A: abc\r\nX-Hdr-B: bcd\r\n"; This is part of my cfg .... modparam("dialog","dlg_flag", FLD_START) modparam("uac","restore_mode","auto") modparam("uac", "restore_dlg", 1) .... # account only INVITEs if (is_method("INVITE") && !has_totag()) { setflag(FLT_ACC); # do accounting * setflag(FLD_START); # do accounting* setflag(FLT_ACCMISSED); setflag(FLT_ACCFAILED); } ..... >From source/Aleg: *From: sipp <sip:sipp@172.16.213.21:5060 <http://sip:sipp@172.16.213.21:5060>>;tag=1.* *To: sut <sip:5555555555@172.16.213.38:5060 <http://sip:5555555555@172.16.213.38:5060>>.* To dest/Bleg: *From: 1111111111 <sip:111111111@172.16.213.38 <sip%3A111111111(a)172.16.213.38>>;tag=1.* *To: 2222222222 <sip:2222222222@172.16.213.38 <sip%3A2222222222(a)172.16.213.38>>.* Incorrect display name in BYE and ACK: *From: sipp <sip:111111111@172.16.213.38 <sip%3A111111111(a)172.16.213.38>>;tag=1.* *To: sut <sip:2222222222@172.16.213.38 <sip%3A2222222222(a)172.16.213.38>>;tag=2.* interface: any filter: ( port 5060 ) and (ip or ip6) # U 2016/12/06 15:52:13.638731 172.16.213.21:5060 -> 172.16.213.38:5060 INVITE sip:5555555555@172.16.213.38:5060 SIP/2.0. Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 172.16.213.21:5060;branch=z9hG4bK-12775-1-0. *From: sipp <sip:sipp@172.16.213.21:5060 <http://sip:sipp@172.16.213.21:5060>>;tag=1.* *To: sut <sip:5555555555@172.16.213.38:5060 <http://sip:5555555555@172.16.213.38:5060>>.* Call-ID: 1-12775(a)172.16.213.21. CSeq: 1 INVITE. Contact: "SIPP" <sip:sipp@172.16.213.21:5060>. Max-Forwards: 70. Subject: Performance Test. Content-Type: multipart/mixed;boundary=uniqueBoundary. Remote-Party-ID: <sip:sipp@172.16.213.21 >:5060;party=calling;id-type=subscriber;privacy=off;screen=no>. Content-Length: 549. . --uniqueBoundary. Content-Type: application/sdp. . v=0. o=user1 53655765 2353687637 IN IP4 172.16.213.21. s=-. c=IN IP4 172.16.213.21. t=0 0. m=audio 6000 RTP/AVP 8. a=rtpmap:8 PCMA/8000. a=rtpmap:101 telephone-event/8000. a=fmtp:101 0-11,16. . --uniqueBoundary. Content-Type: application/gtd. Content-Disposition: signal;handling=optional. . IAM,. CGN,04,y,1,y,4,1143617400. CIC,0000000573. CPC,09. CPN,02,y,1,52381660. FCI,n,n,n,n,y,n,n,u. GCI,f7140cc78a611601838a002128d7e512. NOC,0,n,1,n. PRN,q761*,AR*,oper2,1993. TMR,02. . --uniqueBoundary--. ................ # U 2016/12/06 15:52:13.734159 172.16.213.38:5060 -> 172.16.213.21:5060 SIP/2.0 100 trying -- your call is important to us. Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 172.16.213.21:5060;branch=z9hG4bK-12775-1-0. *From: sipp <sip:sipp@172.16.213.21:5060 <http://sip:sipp@172.16.213.21:5060>>;tag=1.* *To: sut <sip:5555555555@172.16.213.38:5060 <http://sip:5555555555@172.16.213.38:5060>>.* Call-ID: 1-12775(a)172.16.213.21. CSeq: 1 INVITE. Server: kamailio (4.4.4 (x86_64/linux)). Content-Length: 0. . ................ # U 2016/12/06 15:52:13.878600 172.16.213.38:5060 -> 172.16.213.31:5060 INVITE sip:1111111111@172.16.213.31:5060 SIP/2.0. Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 172.16.213.38;branch=z9hG4bKabaa.840cc83114975a34a37b7af020d37b65.1. *From: 1111111111 <sip:111111111@172.16.213.38 <sip%3A111111111(a)172.16.213.38>>;tag=1.* *To: 2222222222 <sip:2222222222@172.16.213.38 <sip%3A2222222222(a)172.16.213.38>>.* Call-ID: 1-12775(a)172.16.213.21. CSeq: 1 INVITE. Max-Forwards: 69. Subject: Performance Test. Content-Type: multipart/mixed;boundary=uniqueBoundary. Content-Length: 788. Contact: <sip:btpsh-58470879-6c61-1@172.16.213.38>. . --uniqueBoundary. Content-Type: application/sdp. . v=0. o=user1 53655765 2353687637 IN IP4 172.16.213.38. s=-. c=IN IP4 172.16.213.38. t=0 0. m=audio 40236 RTP/AVP 8. a=rtpmap:8 PCMA/8000. a=rtpmap:101 telephone-event/8000. a=fmtp:101 0-11,16. a=sendrecv. a=rtcp:40237. a=ice-ufrag:QNCzXhUr. a=ice-pwd:Ci90BRpdZH51Hx5BaPgGMrGCeh. a=candidate:P1djl8LFNb5kexbG 1 UDP 2130706431 172.16.213.38 40236 typ host. a=candidate:P1djl8LFNb5kexbG 2 UDP 2130706430 172.16.213.38 40237 typ host. . --uniqueBoundary. Content-Type: application/gtd. Content-Disposition: signal;handling=optional. . IAM,. CGN,04,y,1,y,4,1143617400. CIC,0000000573. CPC,09. CPN,02,y,1,52381660. FCI,n,n,n,n,y,n,n,u. GCI,f7140cc78a611601838a002128d7e512. NOC,0,n,1,n. PRN,q761*,AR*,oper2,1993. TMR,02. . --uniqueBoundary--. ................ # U 2016/12/06 15:52:13.879441 172.16.213.31:5060 -> 172.16.213.38:5060 SIP/2.0 180 Ringing. Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 172.16.213.38;branch=z9hG4bKabaa.840cc83114975a34a37b7af020d37b65.1. *From: 1111111111 <sip:111111111@172.16.213.38 <sip%3A111111111(a)172.16.213.38>>;tag=1.* *To: 2222222222 <sip:2222222222@172.16.213.38 <sip%3A2222222222(a)172.16.213.38>>;tag=2.* Call-ID: 1-12775(a)172.16.213.21. CSeq: 1 INVITE. Contact: <sip:172.16.213.31:5060;transport=UDP>. Content-Type: application/sdp. Content-Length: 137. . v=0. o=user1 53655765 2353687637 IN IP4 172.16.213.31. s=-. c=IN IP4 172.16.213.31. t=0 0. m=audio 6000 RTP/AVP 0. a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000. ................ # U 2016/12/06 15:52:13.936565 172.16.213.38:5060 -> 172.16.213.21:5060 SIP/2.0 180 Ringing. *From: sipp <sip:sipp@172.16.213.21:5060 <http://sip:sipp@172.16.213.21:5060>>;tag=1.* *To: sut <sip:5555555555@172.16.213.38:5060 <http://sip:5555555555@172.16.213.38:5060>>;tag=2.* Call-ID: 1-12775(a)172.16.213.21. CSeq: 1 INVITE. Content-Type: application/sdp. Content-Length: 316. Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 172.16.213.21:5060;branch=z9hG4bK-12775-1-0. Contact: <sip:atpsh-58470879-6c61-2@172.16.213.38>. . v=0. o=user1 53655765 2353687637 IN IP4 172.16.213.38. s=-. c=IN IP4 172.16.213.38. t=0 0. m=audio 40248 RTP/AVP 0. a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000. a=sendrecv. a=rtcp:40249. a=candidate:P1djl8LFNb5kexbG 1 UDP 2130706431 172.16.213.38 40248 typ host. a=candidate:P1djl8LFNb5kexbG 2 UDP 2130706430 172.16.213.38 40249 typ host. ................ # U 2016/12/06 15:52:20.882165 172.16.213.31:5060 -> 172.16.213.38:5060 SIP/2.0 200 OK. Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 172.16.213.38;branch=z9hG4bKabaa.840cc83114975a34a37b7af020d37b65.1. *From: 1111111111 <sip:111111111@172.16.213.38 <sip%3A111111111(a)172.16.213.38>>;tag=1.* *To: 2222222222 <sip:2222222222@172.16.213.38 <sip%3A2222222222(a)172.16.213.38>>;tag=2.* Call-ID: 1-12775(a)172.16.213.21. CSeq: 1 INVITE. Contact: <sip:172.16.213.31:5060;transport=UDP>. Content-Type: application/sdp. Content-Length: 213. . v=0. o=user1 53655765 2353687637 IN IP4 172.16.213.31. s=-. c=IN IP4 172.16.213.31. t=0 0. m=audio 6000 RTP/AVP 0. a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000. a=rtpmap:101 telephone-event/8000. a=fmtp:101 0-15. a=ptime:20. a=sendrecv. ................ # U 2016/12/06 15:52:21.173798 172.16.213.38:5060 -> 172.16.213.21:5060 SIP/2.0 200 OK. *From: sipp <sip:sipp@172.16.213.21:5060 <http://sip:sipp@172.16.213.21:5060>>;tag=1.* *To: sut <sip:5555555555@172.16.213.38:5060 <http://sip:5555555555@172.16.213.38:5060>>;tag=2.* Call-ID: 1-12775(a)172.16.213.21. CSeq: 1 INVITE. Content-Type: application/sdp. Content-Length: 380. Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 172.16.213.21:5060;branch=z9hG4bK-12775-1-0. Contact: <sip:atpsh-58470879-6c61-2@172.16.213.38>. . v=0. o=user1 53655765 2353687637 IN IP4 172.16.213.38. s=-. c=IN IP4 172.16.213.38. t=0 0. m=audio 40248 RTP/AVP 0. a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000. a=rtpmap:101 telephone-event/8000. a=fmtp:101 0-15. a=ptime:20. a=sendrecv. a=rtcp:40249. a=candidate:P1djl8LFNb5kexbG 1 UDP 2130706431 172.16.213.38 40248 typ host. a=candidate:P1djl8LFNb5kexbG 2 UDP 2130706430 172.16.213.38 40249 typ host. ................ # U 2016/12/06 15:52:21.174390 172.16.213.21:5060 -> 172.16.213.38:5060 ACK sip:atpsh-58470879-6c61-2@172.16.213.38 SIP/2.0. Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 172.16.213.21:5060;branch=z9hG4bK-12775-1-4. *From: sipp <sip:sipp@172.16.213.21:5060 <http://sip:sipp@172.16.213.21:5060>>;tag=1.* *To: sut <sip:5555555555@172.16.213.38:5060 <http://sip:5555555555@172.16.213.38:5060>>;tag=2.* Call-ID: 1-12775(a)172.16.213.21. CSeq: 1 ACK. Contact: sip:sipp@172.16.213.21:5060. Max-Forwards: 70. Subject: Performance Test. Content-Length: 0. . ................ # U 2016/12/06 15:52:21.248172 172.16.213.38:5060 -> 172.16.213.31:5060 ACK sip:172.16.213.31:5060;transport=UDP SIP/2.0. Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 172.16.213.38;branch=z9hG4bKabaa.98116b5795d4c30f52156187a72059c8.0. *From: sipp <sip:111111111@172.16.213.38 <sip%3A111111111(a)172.16.213.38>>;tag=1.* *To: sut <sip:2222222222@172.16.213.38 <sip%3A2222222222(a)172.16.213.38>>;tag=2.* Call-ID: 1-12775(a)172.16.213.21. CSeq: 1 ACK. Max-Forwards: 69. Subject: Performance Test. Content-Length: 0. Contact: <sip:btpsh-58470879-6c61-1@172.16.213.38>. . ................ # U 2016/12/06 15:52:51.178826 172.16.213.21:5060 -> 172.16.213.38:5060 BYE sip:atpsh-58470879-6c61-2@172.16.213.38 SIP/2.0. Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 172.16.213.21:5060;branch=z9hG4bK-12775-1-7. *From: sipp <sip:sipp@172.16.213.21:5060 <http://sip:sipp@172.16.213.21:5060>>;tag=1.* *To: sut <sip:5555555555@172.16.213.38:5060 <http://sip:5555555555@172.16.213.38:5060>>;tag=2.* Call-ID: 1-12775(a)172.16.213.21. CSeq: 2 BYE. Contact: sip:sipp@172.16.213.21:5060. Max-Forwards: 70. Subject: Performance Test. Content-Length: 0. . ................ # U 2016/12/06 15:52:51.468639 172.16.213.38:5060 -> 172.16.213.31:5060 BYE sip:172.16.213.31:5060;transport=UDP SIP/2.0. Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 172.16.213.38;branch=z9hG4bK7baa.3cb44935b506e759e3418501b0688b08.0. *From: sipp <sip:111111111@172.16.213.38 <sip%3A111111111(a)172.16.213.38>>;tag=1.* *To: sut <sip:2222222222@172.16.213.38 <sip%3A2222222222(a)172.16.213.38>>;tag=2.* Call-ID: 1-12775(a)172.16.213.21. CSeq: 2 BYE. Max-Forwards: 69. Subject: Performance Test. Content-Length: 0. Contact: <sip:btpsh-58470879-6c61-1@172.16.213.38>. . ................ # U 2016/12/06 15:52:51.469153 172.16.213.31:5060 -> 172.16.213.38:5060 SIP/2.0 200 OK. Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 172.16.213.38;branch=z9hG4bK7baa.3cb44935b506e759e3418501b0688b08.0. *From: sipp <sip:111111111@172.16.213.38 <sip%3A111111111(a)172.16.213.38>>;tag=1.* *To: sut <sip:2222222222@172.16.213.38 <sip%3A2222222222(a)172.16.213.38>>;tag=2.* Call-ID: 1-12775(a)172.16.213.21. CSeq: 2 BYE. Contact: <sip:172.16.213.31:5060;transport=UDP>. Content-Length: 0. . ................ # U 2016/12/06 15:52:51.519423 172.16.213.38:5060 -> 172.16.213.21:5060 SIP/2.0 200 OK. *From: sipp <sip:sipp@172.16.213.21:5060 <http://sip:sipp@172.16.213.21:5060>>;tag=1.* *To: sut <sip:5555555555@172.16.213.38:5060 <http://sip:5555555555@172.16.213.38:5060>>;tag=2.* Call-ID: 1-12775(a)172.16.213.21. CSeq: 2 BYE. Content-Length: 0. Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 172.16.213.21:5060;branch=z9hG4bK-12775-1-7. Contact: <sip:atpsh-58470879-6c61-2@172.16.213.38>. . ................ exit 13 received, 0 dropped Sorry for my english. Thanks in advance! Diego.

6 years, 11 months

pua.publish using RPC

by Alex Balashov

Hello, Is pua.publish strictly an MI function, or is it possible nowadays to call it via the RPC channel, and specifically, using jsonrpc_exec()? Thanks! -- Alex -- Alex Balashov | Principal | Evariste Systems LLC Tel: +1-706-510-6800 (direct) / +1-800-250-5920 (toll-free) Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/, http://www.csrpswitch.com/

7 years

fix_nated_contact and IPv6

by Sebastian Damm

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

7 years, 2 months

Jump to page:

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 2017