sr-users February 2019

sr-users@lists.kamailio.org

78 participants
97 discussions

rtpengine not listening on specified port range

by Narayan P

Hello, I am starting the rtpengine through this command,but rtpengine is not listening on the specified port range.It is listening on some other port outside of this.Here first IP is private IP and the second IP is public one.So issue is with audio.Can you please let me know what exactly I am missing. rtpengine --interface=172.20.xx.xxx\!34.209.1.xx -f -m 16384 -M 16884 -E --listen-ng=127.0.0.1:22222 & Any suggestion will be highly appreciated. Thanks, Narayan

5 years, 2 months

rat-proxy issue

by aroosa satti

Hi! I have issue regarding my rtpproxy.I have start it but it does't work and give error like Feb 9 02:46:50 ns1 ./kamailio[3682]: NOTICE: <core> [main.c:692]: handle_sigs(): Thank you for flying kamailio!!! Feb 9 02:46:53 ns1 ./kamailio[4318]: ERROR: <core> [main.c:1165]: parse_phostport(): bad protocol in unix:/var/run/rtpproxy.sock these are the issue I will be grateful for you if you solve this problem. kind regards Aroosa Satti

5 years, 2 months

how to differentiate branches in parallel call forking

by Koray Vatansever

Hi, I'm trying to implement parallel call forking scenario. Since target clients have different media profiles, I need to set different rtpengine options for those forked calls. So according to the rtpengine module documentation, I set via-branch option on request and response, '1' and '2' respectively ('auto' option is not working. There is no code implementing this parameter). However all forked branches have the same via branch id which is the incoming INVITE's via branch id. As a result, rtpengine thinks that all the offers belong to the same session I guess. It seems I have only 'extra' option with extra_pv_id variable. In order to use it, I need an elegant way to differentiate forked branches in request and response processing. I would appreciate any suggestion.

5 years, 2 months

rtpproxy issues

by aroosa satti

5 years, 2 months

Kamailio modules that can be used in Lua

by Leonid Fainshtein

Hello, I am checking a possibility to replace the traditional cfg script with a Lua script. In the app_lua module documentation there is a relatively short list of modules that can be registered to Lua. The modules nathelper, rtpproxy, topoh and many others don't appear in the list. Does it mean that it is not possible to use that modules in Lua? Best regards, Leonid Fainshtein

5 years, 2 months

Waiting for calls

by Mark Hall

Hi, I am using Kamailio as a gateway for inbound calls to a group of Asterisk servers. One particular call scenario involves matching pairs of calls. Originally I was just sending the calls through to Asterisk for processing (including the 'matching up'), but there is a further requirement that the first received call must not be answered until its matching call arrives - and this is a little awkward in Asterisk, especially if there will be many calls. I thought of t_suspend/t_continue functionality in Kamailio. I have implemented this: CallA arrives. Send 180-ringing Use ds_select_dst() to choose an Asterisk to handle the paired calls Store destination and other data in an htable so that I can match the call later. Invoke t_suspend() for CallA. What I have implemented when the matching call arrives is this: CallB arrives (and some logic matches it to the suspended CallA). Invoke t_continue('id','label','CONTINUE_CALL'); so that CallA is now released and the route ends in t_relay() to send it on to Asterisk. Set $du on CallB to match the destination, then t_relay() this call to send it on to the same Asterisk. The solution almost works, but there is a problem. The t_relay() for CallA is fine, and the call is forwarded. When the script runs the t_relay() for CallB, I get this logged: ERROR: tm [t_fwd.c:1728]: t_forward_nonack(): no branches for forwarding ERROR: sl [sl_funcs.c:362]: sl_reply_error(): stateless error reply used: I'm terribly sorry, server error occurred (6/SL) AND after each call I notice an extra transaction stuck in Kamailio (when I use kamctl rpc tm.list). Can anyone point out where my Kamailio/SIP understanding has let me down? Many Thanks, Mark Hall

5 years, 2 months

Re: [SR-Users] TLS challenge

by Gertjan Wolzak

Hello Kamailions, Julien, thank you for the help, I have added the letsencrypt ca certificate to the ca list, still no dice. So, still got lots of questions, but after my last booboo going to do some more research and testing. When I have no more hair left will get back to the list. Thanks for now. Rgds, Gertjan Wolzak

5 years, 2 months

ERROR : EAGAIN and write queue full or failed for tcp Connection

by YASIN CANER

Hello, Kamailio gave this error that couldnt bind tcp connection other side. Thanks Yasin CANER Kamailio IPv6:TCP: -----> IPv6:TCP Kamailio -----> X ERROR XXXX IPv6:TCP Kamailio IPv6::C IPv6::8 IPv6::5 LOGS: 7(15781) DEBUG: <core> [core/msg_translator.c:2937]: create_via_hf(): id added: <;i=1>, rcv proto=2 7(15781) DEBUG: <core> [core/msg_translator.c:162]: check_via_address(): (FD61:C23C:B3B6:0:0:0:0:C, [FD61:C23C:B3B6:0:0:0:0:C], 0) 7(15781) DEBUG: <core> [core/tcp_main.c:1977]: tcp_send(): no open tcp connection found, opening new one 7(15781) DEBUG: <core> [core/ip_addr.c:242]: print_ip(): tcpconn_new: new tcp connection: fd61:c23c:b3b6:0:0:0:0:5 7(15781) DEBUG: <core> [core/tcp_main.c:1229]: tcpconn_new(): on port 5060, type 2 7(15781) DEBUG: <core> [core/tcp_main.c:1539]: tcpconn_add(): hashes: 507:2382:0, 2 7(15781) DEBUG: <core> [core/tcp_main.c:2873]: tcpconn_1st_send(): pending write on new connection 0x7fd15b5e7c98 (-1/1483 bytes written) (err: 11 - Resource temporarily unavailable) 7(15781) ERROR: <core> [core/tcp_main.c:2891]: tcpconn_1st_send(): [FD61:C23C:B3B6:0:0:0:0:5]:5060: EAGAIN and write queue full or failed for 0x7fd15b5e7c98 7(15781) DEBUG: <core> [core/tcp_main.c:3153]: tcpconn_chld_put(): destroying connection 0x7fd15b5e7c98 (2, -1) flags 0060 7(15781) ERROR: tm [../../core/forward.h:251]: msg_send_buffer(): tcp_send failed 7(15781) DEBUG: tm [t_fwd.c:1549]: t_send_branch(): send to FD61:C23C:B3B6:0:0:0:0:5:5060 (2) failed 7(15781) WARNING: tm [t_fwd.c:1567]: t_send_branch(): sending request on branch 0 failed CONF: dns_try_ipv6=yes dns_retr_time=1 dns_retr_no=1 dns_cache_flags=4 tcp_source_ipv6 = [fd61:c23c:b3b6::8] tcp_async=yes tcp_rd_buf_size=65536 tcp_wq_blk_size=3000 listen=tcp:[fd61:c23c:b3b6::8]:5060 tcp_connection_lifetime=3605 listen=tcp:[fd61:c23c:b3b6::8]:5060 ..... route[]{ remove_hf("Route"); #loose_route(); if (!is_method("INVITE")) return; $du="sip: mykamailio1.test:5060;transport=tcp"; if(!t_newtran()){ xlog("L_WARN"," Couldnt create new transaction \r\n"); sl_send_reply("503", "Service not available"); exit; } if(!t_relay()){ send_reply("503", "Service not available"); exit; } exit; }

5 years, 2 months

Keep requests order

by Duarte Rocha

Greetings, I'm having some problems with keeping the order of the messages in Kamailio. In some cases i'm receiving an ACK for the first INVITE and immediately after that a RE-INVITE is sent by the client. What is happening is that the the ACK took double the time of the RE-INVITE to process and as a consequence, the RE-INVITE was relayed before the ACK. I have two questions : 1 - Is there a way to keep the order of the messages in a dialog, and if so, what are the downsides to it? 2 - The machine wasn't in a load state (only one concurrent call) and the ACK and the RE-INVITE should go roughly through the same processing methods and should take took the same time to be be relayed. What can be the reason for this? Best Regards, Duarte Rocha

5 years, 2 months

Kamailio with RTPengine, allow source port of RTP to change during a call

by Laurent Schweizer

Hello, I'm using the RTPengine with Kamailio and I have a question for a specific case. I have some customer that are changing the source port of the RTP stream during the call ( no re-invite) I think it's more a NAT issue that a user agent issue... I see in the doc that I can handle this case with the "media handover" but in that case the rtpengine will allow a change of the source port but also of the source IP. Any possibility to allow only a change of the source port so source IP must still be the same ? Thanks BR Laurent

5 years, 2 months

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Older →

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 February 2019