sr-users March 2020

sr-users@lists.kamailio.org

64 participants
80 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

Is Min-SE check broken?
by harneet singh 31 May '23

31 May '23

Hi All, I am facing an issue in understanding how the min_se should be working in kamailio. As per the SST documentation, it seems like if the min_se is configured as 500, then any value of Session-Expires OR MIN-SE if lower than 500, can be responded to by a 422. However, I strangely see the reverse happening. To investigate further, I looked in to the ki_sst_check_min() code in the master, and these seems like a potential issue. Ref Code: Inside ki_sst_check_min(), there is an if condition like below: if (sst_min_se < MIN(minse, se.interval)) { However, shouldn't it be the other way around? ie if (sst_min_se > MIN(minse, se.interval)) { because we need to send 422 if the received value(in INVITE etc) is smaller than the sst configure min_se value? I also found a different documentation, at https://git.sgu.ru/oldssu/ex-opensips/blob/cb9df8d59dbb254a9d862569fd5d11f6… where the check is as below? if (sst_min_se > MIN(minse, se.interval)) { Can someone confirm if this is broken, or my understanding is incorrect? Regards, Harneet -- "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth" - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

2 3

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

Add Reason Header to kamailio generated CANCEL
by Alfonso Pinto 18 Nov '20

18 Nov '20

Hi everyone, I've got a specific case: when the inv_fr times out, I need to add a Reason header to the CANCEL generated by kamailio. I've tried to see if I could do it in the onsend_route, but that one is not triggered for the generated CANCEL. I also checked event_route[tm:local-request], but that one isn't triggered either for the generated CANCEL. Is there any way to do it? Or maybe to have any pointer about where to look in the code so I may try to trigger event_route[tm:local-request] for these generated CANCELs? Regards, Alfonso

6 17

Rewrite BYE to Cancel
by Lars Olsson 29 Sep '20

29 Sep '20

hi, I have a Kamailio setup infront of a SIP system that do not handle cancellation of a INVITE correctly. The system sends out a BYE request instead of a Cancel request on non connected dialogs. I am trying to find a way to let Kamailio "translate" the BYE request to a Cancel reqeust for the ongoing INVITE dialog. Alternative if SEMS b2bua can do it, but currently it replies: "not sip-relaying BYE in not connected dlg", and I have not found any obvious way to rewrite it there. Any thoughts. I can not change the behavior of the remote system. Best Regards, Lars

3 11

RTP port range in kuberenetes for kamailio
by Gaurav Bmotra 08 Jun '20

08 Jun '20

hi i have issue audio issue with kamailio in kubernetse cluster anybody , idea how to fix it in kubernetses thank you -- *Regards:* Gaurav Kumar

3 4

nathelper without usrloc
by Daniel W. Graham 18 May '20

18 May '20

I’ve been missing with this for a while and seem to be missing something. Any suggestions on what is missing here? Trying to use set_contact_alias() and handle_ruri_alias() from nathelper module and nat_keepalive from nat_traversal module, without registrar. I had register keepalive working, that has since broke. When register keepalive was working, I was able to place call in either direction but ACK and BYE was not being routed past kamailio. Registrations are forwarded to the PBX using add_path() and is working. Also not included below is the routing to the PBX, that is just setting $du and t_relay, and is also working. Topology is: UA1 -> NAT -> kamailio -> PBX -> UA2 Using default config file as the example, modified with above changes. I also removed RTP config as that is a non-issue. request_route { …… # FLAG MESSAGES FROM PBX setflag(FLT_PBX); route(NATDETECT); …… route[NATDETECT] { if (nat_uac_test("19")) { force_rport(); set_contact_alias(); nat_keepalive(); } return; } route[WITHINDLG] { if (!has_totag()) return; if (loose_route()) { route(DLGURI); } else if ( is_method("ACK") ) { route(NATMANAGE); } else if ( is_method("NOTIFY") ) { record_route(); } route(RELAY); exit; } if (is_method("SUBSCRIBE") && uri == myself) { route(PRESENCE); exit; } if ( is_method("ACK") ) { if ( t_check_trans() ) { route(RELAY); exit; } else { exit; } } sl_send_reply("404","Not here"); exit; } route[NATMANAGE] { if(isflagset(FLT_PBX)) { handle_ruri_alias(); } if(!isflagset(FLT_PBX)) { set_contact_alias(); } return; } route[DLGURI] { if(!isdsturiset()) { handle_ruri_alias(); } return; } branch_route[MANAGE_BRANCH] { route(NATMANAGE); } onreply_route[MANAGE_REPLY] { if(status=~"[12][0-9][0-9]") { route(NATMANAGE); } } failure_route[MANAGE_FAILURE] { route(NATMANAGE); if (t_is_canceled()) exit; -dan

4 19

db_redis and PUA
by Carsten Bock 08 May '20

08 May '20

Hi, quick question: Did anyone ever attempt to use PUA with the new db_redis? If yes, could someone share the definition for this? Thanks, Carsten -- Carsten Bock I CTO & Founder ng-voice GmbH Trostbrücke 1 I 20457 Hamburg I Germany T +49 40 524 75 93-40 | M +49 179 2021244 I www.ng-voice.com Registry Office at Local Court Hamburg, HRB 120189 Managing Directors: Dr. David Bachmann, Carsten Bock

3 2

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

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 March 2020