sr-users May 2019

sr-users@lists.kamailio.org

84 participants
97 discussions

Via header force change protocol to TLS?
by Anthony Alba 30 May '24

30 May '24

I have kamailio behind a TLS termination proxy so the sockets are correctly deduced to be TCP. However the clients only talk TLS to the proxy and are confused when the top Via header added by Kamailio is TCP. Is there a way for Kamailio to forcibly pretend its protocol is TLS? Like advertised_address but "advertised_protocol" instead. (With pjsip testing: it has a flag use_tls which ignores TCP from Kamailio and continues to use the persistent TLS transport to proxy. Linphone fails because it tries to honor TCP in Via and is unable to establish TCP transport). BTW I am using t_relay_to_tcp so Kamailio will return traffic to the proxy as TCP even though the contact addresses specify transport=TLS.

4 10

Re: [SR-Users] TOPOS (5.1.[23]) breaks PRACK
by Daniel Tryba 02 May '23

02 May '23

On Mon, May 07, 2018 at 04:44:14PM +0200, Daniel Tryba wrote: > Sure. Attached. Problem appears to be that the topos query can't find > callid-totag (from the response). > > I'll try the same scenario with the mysql backend to see if it behaves > different. Config works fine with mysql as topos backend. So the bug is restricted to topos-redis.

5 19

Re: [SR-Users] t_drop_replies not working with t_suspend in failure route
by Huber Andreas 03 Sep '21

03 Sep '21

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

2 1

nat_uac_test(8)
by Sergiu Pojoga 24 Apr '20

24 Apr '20

When receiving an INVITE over a specific LTE carrier, I'm seeing 'c=IN IP4 192.0.0.4' in SDP, which isn't technically a RFC1918 or RFC6598 IP address and thus nat_uac_test(8) fails. What elegant workaround can be done to catch such specific cases? Thanks.

5 11

need help with RTPProxy in bridged mode
by Grant Bagdasarian 04 Apr '20

04 Apr '20

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 8

Kamailio OPTIONS Round-Trip
by Soltanici Ilie 27 Mar '20

27 Mar '20

Hi, With Asterisk, we are able to get some peer round-trip connection statistic by setting qualify=yes for the specified peer. It sends periodic OPTIONS to the peer and calculates the time round trip time. It's something like - "Status: OK (30 ms)". Is there any way to achieve this in Kamailio by using nathelper module, or any other? Thank you.

9 13

Kamailio stop to process incoming SIP traffic via TCP.
by Kristijan Vrban 16 Jan '20

16 Jan '20

Hi kamailios, i have a creepy situation with v5.2.1 stable Kamilio. After a day or so, Kamailio stop to process incoming SIP traffic via TCP. The incoming TCP network packages get TCP-ACK from the OS (Debian 9, 4.18.0-15-generic-Linux) but Kamailio does not show any processing for the SIP-Traffic incoming via TCP. No logs, nothing. While traffic via UDP is working just totally fine. When i look via command "netstat -ntp" is see, that the Recv-Q get bigger and bigger. e.g.: Proto Recv-Q Send-Q Local Address Foreign Address State PID/Program name tcp 4566 0 172.17.217.12:5060 xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:57252 ESTABLISHED 31347/kamailio After Kamailio restart, all is working fine again for a day. We have maybe 10-20 devices online via TCP and low call volume (1-2 call per minute). The only settings for tcp we have is "tcp_delayed_ack=no" How to could we debug this situation? Again, no error, no warings in the log. Just nothing. Kristijan

11 46

WebRTC ACK Protocol
by Ilie Soltanici 08 Jan '20

08 Jan '20

Hello, I am trying to set up a WebRTC2SIP Gateway by using Kamailio and rtpengine. So far, everything is working fine, I'm able to register an extension and make a call, but for some reason, when i'm trying to call a WebRTC extension from any SIP Extension Kamailio is sending INVITE, WebRTC extension is sending back 200 OK, and then Kamailio is trying to send an ACK through UDP protocol, and not through wss, as it's supposed to do. This is how invite is looking: INVITE sip:nl7oe4ss@vjbh7r4im6j7.invalid;transport=wss SIP/2.0 Record-Route: <sip:my-company.net ;transport=udp;ftag=as1789445c;lr=on;nat=yes> Via: SIP/2.0/WSS 123.123.123.123:10443 ;branch=z9hG4bKe655.29d7c135a302f3eb803902d4f5a8da7e.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.50.237:5060 ;received=192.168.50.237;branch=z9hG4bK7d2e534e;rport=5060 Max-Forwards: 70 From: "WebRTC" <sip:11@my-company.net>;tag=as1789445c To: <sip:15@192.168.50.210:5060> Contact: <sip:11@192.168.50.237:5060> Call-ID: 7fc800de060197fa2315c93763873092(a)my-company.net CSeq: 102 INVITE User-Agent: Proxy Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2019 17:11:41 GMT Allow: INVITE, ACK, CANCEL, OPTIONS, BYE, REFER, SUBSCRIBE, NOTIFY, INFO, PUBLISH, MESSAGE Supported: replaces, timer Alert-Info: Content-Type: application/sdp Content-Length: 596 Server: SIP Proxy and then WebRTC app is replying with 200 OK: SIP/2.0 200 OK Record-Route: <sip:my-company.net ;transport=udp;ftag=as1789445c;lr=on;nat=yes> Via: SIP/2.0/WSS 123.123.123.123:10443 ;branch=z9hG4bKe655.29d7c135a302f3eb803902d4f5a8da7e.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.50.237:5060 ;received=192.168.50.237;branch=z9hG4bK7d2e534e;rport=5060 To: <sip:15@192.168.50.210:5060>;tag=dk4fa8ftt6 From: "WebRTC" <sip:11@my-company.net>;tag=as1789445c Call-ID: 7fc800de060197fa2315c93763873092(a)my-company.net CSeq: 102 INVITE Contact: <sip:nl7oe4ss@vjbh7r4im6j7.invalid;transport=wss> Allow: ACK,CANCEL,INVITE,MESSAGE,BYE,OPTIONS,INFO,NOTIFY,REFER Supported: outbound User-Agent: Proxy-WEBRTC Content-Type: application/sdp Content-Length: 901 and finally, Kamailio is trying to send this ack through UDP protocol: ACK sip:nl7oe4ss@22.22.22.22:57421;transport=wss SIP/2.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.50.237:5060;branch=z9hG4bK56363ddf;rport Route: <sip:my-company.net;transport=udp;ftag=as1789445c;lr=on;nat=yes> Max-Forwards: 70 From: "WebRTC" <sip:11@my-company.net>;tag=as1789445c To: <sip:15@192.168.50.210:5060>;tag=dk4fa8ftt6 Contact: <sip:11@192.168.50.237:5060> Call-ID: 7fc800de060197fa2315c93763873092(a)my-company.net CSeq: 102 ACK User-Agent: Proxy Content-Length: 0 If i'm trying to force it through TLS, i'm receiving error: get_send_socket2(): protocol/port mismatch (forced tls:123.123.123.123:10443, to udp:22.22.22.22:23317) Can someone point me in the right direction, please? Thank you.

3 4

rtpproxy does not response, disable it
by Zodiac 03 Jan '20

03 Jan '20

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 ------------------------------------

5 10

Re-invite after RTPengine pacemaker switching?
by Жан Базаров 07 Nov '19

07 Nov '19

I need to send re-invite after pacemaker fails over on new rtpengine server. Because new rtpengine dont participate in DTLS handshake and i hear nothing, but silence. I think, may me its would be work. Do you have any idea on this issue?

3 5

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 May 2019