sr-users March 2020

sr-users@lists.kamailio.org

64 participants
80 discussions

Kamailio connection issue
by Tomas Zanet 09 Mar '20

09 Mar '20

Hi All, In these days I'm facing an issue or a misconfiguration, I don't know, with our remote apps (SIP clients) and our cloud server in which there's a Kamailio version 4.4.4. Sometimes our app takes some seconds (about 10-12sec) to connect to the Kamailio socket (sips on 5061) and our app is stuck on connect sytem call. To debug this behaviour I put a rule in the iptable like this: sudo iptables -I INPUT -p tcp -m tcp --dport 5061 -m state --state NEW -j LOG --log-level 1 --log-prefix "New Connection " when everything goes well, there is one row which describes the new incoming connection Mar 4 07:08:40 server-xip-01 kernel: New Connection IN=eth0 OUT= MAC=bc:76:4e:20:1f:fb:e8:ed:f3:3a:52:41:08:00 SRC=X.X.X.X DST=Y.Y.Y.Y LEN=64 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=45 ID=0 DF PROTO=TCP SPT=15819 DPT=5061 WINDOW=65535 RES=0x00 CWR ECE SYN URGP=0 when our app gets stuck in the connect, there are many attempts and seems that Kamailio is not ready to accept this connection: Mar 4 07:11:54 server-xip-01 kernel: New Connection IN=eth0 OUT= MAC=bc:76:4e:20:1f:fb:e8:ed:f3:3a:52:41:08:00 SRC=X.X.X.X DST=Y.Y.Y.Y LEN=64 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=45 ID=0 DF PROTO=TCP SPT=52900 DPT=5061 WINDOW=65535 RES=0x00 CWR ECE SYN URGP=0 Mar 4 07:11:54 server-xip-01 kernel: New Connection IN=eth0 OUT= MAC=bc:76:4e:20:1f:fb:e8:ed:f3:3a:52:41:08:00 SRC=X.X.X.X DST=Y.Y.Y.Y LEN=64 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=45 ID=0 DF PROTO=TCP SPT=52900 DPT=5061 WINDOW=65535 RES=0x00 SYN URGP=0 Mar 4 07:11:55 server-xip-01 kernel: New Connection IN=eth0 OUT= MAC=bc:76:4e:20:1f:fb:e8:ed:f3:3a:52:41:08:00 SRC=X.X.X.X DST=Y.Y.Y.Y LEN=64 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=45 ID=0 DF PROTO=TCP SPT=52900 DPT=5061 WINDOW=65535 RES=0x00 SYN URGP=0 Mar 4 07:11:55 server-xip-01 kernel: New Connection IN=eth0 OUT= MAC=bc:76:4e:20:1f:fb:e8:ed:f3:3a:52:41:08:00 SRC=X.X.X.X DST=Y.Y.Y.Y LEN=64 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=45 ID=0 DF PROTO=TCP SPT=52900 DPT=5061 WINDOW=65535 RES=0x00 SYN URGP=0 Mar 4 07:11:55 server-xip-01 kernel: New Connection IN=eth0 OUT= MAC=bc:76:4e:20:1f:fb:e8:ed:f3:3a:52:41:08:00 SRC=X.X.X.X DST=Y.Y.Y.Y LEN=64 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=45 ID=0 DF PROTO=TCP SPT=52900 DPT=5061 WINDOW=65535 RES=0x00 SYN URGP=0 Mar 4 07:11:56 server-xip-01 kernel: New Connection IN=eth0 OUT= MAC=bc:76:4e:20:1f:fb:e8:ed:f3:3a:52:41:08:00 SRC=X.X.X.X DST=Y.Y.Y.Y LEN=64 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=45 ID=0 DF PROTO=TCP SPT=52900 DPT=5061 WINDOW=65535 RES=0x00 SYN URGP=0 Mar 4 07:11:56 server-xip-01 kernel: New Connection IN=eth0 OUT= MAC=bc:76:4e:20:1f:fb:e8:ed:f3:3a:52:41:08:00 SRC=X.X.X.X DST=Y.Y.Y.Y LEN=64 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=45 ID=0 DF PROTO=TCP SPT=52900 DPT=5061 WINDOW=65535 RES=0x00 SYN URGP=0 Mar 4 07:11:56 server-xip-01 kernel: New Connection IN=eth0 OUT= MAC=bc:76:4e:20:1f:fb:e8:ed:f3:3a:52:41:08:00 SRC=X.X.X.X DST=Y.Y.Y.Y LEN=64 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=45 ID=0 DF PROTO=TCP SPT=52900 DPT=5061 WINDOW=65535 RES=0x00 SYN URGP=0 Mar 4 07:11:58 server-xip-01 kernel: New Connection IN=eth0 OUT= MAC=bc:76:4e:20:1f:fb:e8:ed:f3:3a:52:41:08:00 SRC=X.X.X.X DST=Y.Y.Y.Y LEN=64 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=45 ID=0 DF PROTO=TCP SPT=52900 DPT=5061 WINDOW=65535 RES=0x00 SYN URGP=0 Mar 4 07:12:00 server-xip-01 kernel: New Connection IN=eth0 OUT= MAC=bc:76:4e:20:1f:fb:e8:ed:f3:3a:52:41:08:00 SRC=X.X.X.X DST=Y.Y.Y.Y LEN=64 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=45 ID=0 DF PROTO=TCP SPT=52900 DPT=5061 WINDOW=65535 RES=0x00 SYN URGP=0 Mar 4 07:12:05 server-xip-01 kernel: New Connection IN=eth0 OUT= MAC=bc:76:4e:20:1f:fb:e8:ed:f3:3a:52:41:08:00 SRC=X.X.X.X DST=Y.Y.Y.Y LEN=48 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=45 ID=0 DF PROTO=TCP SPT=52900 DPT=5061 WINDOW=65535 RES=0x00 SYN URGP=0 When it happens our app takes more than 10 sec to connect to the Kamailio socket. I tried to increase the children configuration parameter in the cfg file because I thought there were not enough tcp receiver but with no luck. Here are some configuration parameters: children = 16 // was 8 before found this issue # life time of TCP connection when there is no traffic # - a bit higher than registration expires to cope with UA behind NAT tcp_connection_lifetime=3605 open_files_limit=8192 tcp_max_connections=8192 tls_max_connections=8192 Here is the output of the ulimit command: ulimit -a core file size (blocks, -c) 0 data seg size (kbytes, -d) unlimited scheduling priority (-e) 0 file size (blocks, -f) unlimited pending signals (-i) 31393 max locked memory (kbytes, -l) 64 max memory size (kbytes, -m) unlimited open files (-n) 65535 pipe size (512 bytes, -p) 8 POSIX message queues (bytes, -q) 819200 real-time priority (-r) 0 stack size (kbytes, -s) 8192 cpu time (seconds, -t) unlimited max user processes (-u) 31393 virtual memory (kbytes, -v) unlimited file locks (-x) unlimited In the kamailio log file I don't see anything wrong, I don't see messages like "[tcp_main.c:3913]: handle_new_connect(): maximum number of tls connections exceeded". Here is the output of kamctl ps command Process:: ID=0 PID=11725 Type=main process - attendant Process:: ID=1 PID=11727 Type=udp receiver child=0 sock=10.208.194.26:5061 Process:: ID=2 PID=11728 Type=udp receiver child=1 sock=10.208.194.26:5061 Process:: ID=3 PID=11729 Type=udp receiver child=2 sock=10.208.194.26:5061 Process:: ID=4 PID=11730 Type=udp receiver child=3 sock=10.208.194.26:5061 Process:: ID=5 PID=11731 Type=udp receiver child=4 sock=10.208.194.26:5061 Process:: ID=6 PID=11732 Type=udp receiver child=5 sock=10.208.194.26:5061 Process:: ID=7 PID=11733 Type=udp receiver child=6 sock=10.208.194.26:5061 Process:: ID=8 PID=11734 Type=udp receiver child=7 sock=10.208.194.26:5061 Process:: ID=9 PID=11735 Type=udp receiver child=8 sock=10.208.194.26:5061 Process:: ID=10 PID=11736 Type=udp receiver child=9 sock=10.208.194.26:5061 Process:: ID=11 PID=11737 Type=udp receiver child=10 sock=10.208.194.26:5061 Process:: ID=12 PID=11738 Type=udp receiver child=11 sock=10.208.194.26:5061 Process:: ID=13 PID=11739 Type=udp receiver child=12 sock=10.208.194.26:5061 Process:: ID=14 PID=11740 Type=udp receiver child=13 sock=10.208.194.26:5061 Process:: ID=15 PID=11741 Type=udp receiver child=14 sock=10.208.194.26:5061 Process:: ID=16 PID=11742 Type=udp receiver child=15 sock=10.208.194.26:5061 Process:: ID=17 PID=11743 Type=slow timer Process:: ID=18 PID=11744 Type=timer Process:: ID=19 PID=11745 Type=secondary timer Process:: ID=20 PID=11746 Type=MI FIFO Process:: ID=21 PID=11747 Type=USRLOC Timer Process:: ID=22 PID=11748 Type=USRLOC Timer Process:: ID=23 PID=11749 Type=USRLOC Timer Process:: ID=24 PID=11750 Type=USRLOC Timer Process:: ID=25 PID=11751 Type=ctl handler Process:: ID=26 PID=11752 Type=RTIMER SEC EXEC Process:: ID=27 PID=11753 Type=TIMER NH Process:: ID=28 PID=11754 Type=tcp receiver (generic) child=0 Process:: ID=29 PID=11755 Type=tcp receiver (generic) child=1 Process:: ID=30 PID=11756 Type=tcp receiver (generic) child=2 Process:: ID=31 PID=11757 Type=tcp receiver (generic) child=3 Process:: ID=32 PID=11758 Type=tcp receiver (generic) child=4 Process:: ID=33 PID=11759 Type=tcp receiver (generic) child=5 Process:: ID=34 PID=11760 Type=tcp receiver (generic) child=6 Process:: ID=35 PID=11761 Type=tcp receiver (generic) child=7 Process:: ID=36 PID=11762 Type=tcp receiver (generic) child=8 Process:: ID=37 PID=11763 Type=tcp receiver (generic) child=9 Process:: ID=38 PID=11764 Type=tcp receiver (generic) child=10 Process:: ID=39 PID=11765 Type=tcp receiver (generic) child=11 Process:: ID=40 PID=11766 Type=tcp receiver (generic) child=12 Process:: ID=41 PID=11767 Type=tcp receiver (generic) child=13 Process:: ID=42 PID=11768 Type=tcp receiver (generic) child=14 Process:: ID=43 PID=11769 Type=tcp receiver (generic) child=15 Process:: ID=44 PID=11770 Type=tcp main process Can anyone address me to find out this happens, please? Please let me know if you need further information... Thanks in advance, Best Regards Tomas Tomas Zanet R&D Software Designer tzanet(a)came.com CAME S.p.A.

4 5

Using DNS hostname with the Dispatcher module to determine online routes
by Thomas Cavill 09 Mar '20

09 Mar '20

Hi all, I am wondering if it is possible for the dispatcher module to monitor multiple endpoints that resolve from a single hostname using DNS. Can I configure a single DNS name in the dispatcher table which resolves to 3 IP addresses and have them monitored by OPTIONS pings, and then select the first one that is marked as active to route requests to? I haven't found much help online to know if this is possible/supported. i.e. Does the dispatcher module support monitoring of multiple results returned from DNS NAPTR records? Thanks, Tom

2 1

usrloc db_mode 2 and dropped contacts
by Alex Balashov 09 Mar '20

09 Mar '20

Hi, On 4.4.7, since switching to db_mode 2 for usrloc with the following settings: modparam("usrloc", "db_mode", 2) modparam("usrloc", "timer_procs", 2) modparam("usrloc", "skip_remote_socket", 1) modparam("usrloc", "timer_interval", 30) modparam("usrloc", "matching_mode", 0) I seem to run into a situation where, despite starting from zero local registrations and an empty DB `location` table, out of ~1700 registrations visible in the runtime usrloc table, about 60-80 never make it into the database. This is because they're being continuously UPDATE'd rather than INSERT'd, so there is some presumption that they should already be in the Postgres database. But they're not. This gap seems to very slowly grow over time. I understand that this option is intended to deal with a scenario like that: https://kamailio.org/docs/modules/5.3.x/modules/usrloc.html#usrloc.p.db_che… but the documentation doesn't say it needs to be on for db_mode 2 to work correctly, and it's off by default. I'm wondering what causes certain registrants to get into this state in the first place, where the registrar presumes that they've already been synced to the DB and only need to be update'd on renewal, where in fact they have not been synced. Causes I've ruled out: 1) The contacts being ignored due to non-local socket or other invalidation; 2) Contacts being explicitly deleted by an outside process. Any ideas appreciated! -- 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/

4 8

problem in sending out calls
by Mohammad Reza Keshavarzianpoor 06 Mar '20

06 Mar '20

Hi, I installed kamailio and siremis. I receive incoming calls from gateway and all is ok. but about sending out calls using dynamic routes I have problem, always I get "not found" error on calling out phone numbers. 1.I need to send my did number with call to approved by gateway 2.do drouting module needs to enabled by config file? 3. if any better solution than drouting, write please, all I need is every subscriber have its did number and route on outgoing calls too. Thanks

1 0

problem in sending out calls to gateway
by Mohammad Reza Keshavarzianpoor 06 Mar '20

06 Mar '20

1 0

rtpengine failover in same SIP dialog with response Unknown call-ide
by Michal Popovic 06 Mar '20

06 Mar '20

Hi, we are facing the issue with automated failover in same SIP dialog in rtpengine module. This issue occurs after we upgraded version 4.4.7 to 5.3.2 and only for rtpengines that are in another datacenter with latency higher than about 100ms. configuration modparam("rtpengine", "rtpengine_sock", "1 == udp:10.0.0.1:2222 udp:10.0.0.2:2222") modparam("rtpengine", "rtpengine_sock", "1 == udp:10.0.0.3:2222 udp:10.0.0.4:2222") INVITE request from kamailio to 10.0.0.1:2222 3:ICE6:remove5:flagsl13:trust-address16:always-transcode17:asymmetric-codecs12:loop-protecte7:replacel6:origin18:session-connectione18:transport-protocol7:RTP/AVP8:rtcp-muxl5:demuxe7:call-id20:xxx:received-froml3:IP414:x.x.x.xe8:from-tag10:naluniuntp7:command5:offere RESPONSE 6:result2:oke ANSWER request is than send to 10.0.0.2:2222 with error 3:ICE5:force5:flagsl13:trust-address16:always-transcode17:asymmetric-codecs12:loop-protecte7:replacel6:origin18:session-connectione18:transport-protocol9:RTP/SAVPF8:rtcp-muxl6:accept5:offere7:call-id20:l63nam58lomphlpvli9o13:received-froml3:IP414:18.212.137.170e8:from-tag10:naluniuntp6:to-tag10:as297c65177:command6:answere RESPONSE d6:result5:error12:error-reason15:Unknown call-ide Only possible fix is to have only one setid with only one server. First RTPengine is not marked as failed in list of rtpengine servers after the first response.

2 5

uac_replace_from in 200 OK of BYE
by Grant Bagdasarian 06 Mar '20

06 Mar '20

Hello, We've been using the uac_replace_from function to anonymize the From header to anonymous(a)anonymous.invalid<mailto:anonymous@anonymous.invalid>. The uac module makes use of the dialog module for restoring the original URI. Everything works fine, except when the callee sends the BYE request (replaced uri is present in To header): the 200 OK received by the callee of the BYE suddenly contains the original URI in the To header. We're running Kamailio 5.1. Is this a known bug or limitation of the uac module? Any way to have this replaced correctly (preferably automatically by uac module)? Regards, Grant

3 4

Kamailio Websocket Module call hangup issue with freeswitch
by Murugan Pandian 06 Mar '20

06 Mar '20

Hello, We are using Kamailio as a register freeswitch as a Media server for SIP its working fine with out any issue. But when we use Websocket module (WebRTC) i can able to register and make call , Even call also connected from browser to PSTN but call will disconnect after 30 seconds look like ICE gathering issue can i know its NAT issue Proxy issue. Regard's Murugan Panidan

2 2

sip domain
by Joli Martinez 05 Mar '20

05 Mar '20

Hello, We have several SIP domains coming into our SBC. I need to build a Kamailio box that will 302 the call to the appropriate server based on the domain. If the call does not come in with a recognized domain I would like for it to 404 the call. Not sure how to do this. Can someone point me in the right direction?

5 5

Unexpected behavior on tmrec with monthly recurrence
by David Gonçalves 04 Mar '20

04 Mar '20

Hi, During some tests with the module tmrec, we stumble upon an unexpected behavior of the monthly recurrence with days of the week. The last week does not match our expected date. For example, the last Monday of March 2020 is day 30 (fifth Monday of the month) however, neither the 5MO or -1MO configuration on the bday parameter match with a timestamp configured to day 30. The same situation is verified on months with only 4 weeks. To easily explain the behavior we create this configuration: $var(ts)="1584355625"; # Monday, March 16, 2020 10:47:05 if(tmrec_match("20200101T090000|PT8H|monthly||1|3MO||||","$(var(ts){s.int})")) { xlog("L_INFO","Epoch $var(ts) matches with 3MO\n"); }else{ xlog("L_INFO","Epoch $var(ts) doesn't match with 3MO\n"); } $var(ts)="1584960425"; # Monday, March 23, 2020 10:47:05 if(tmrec_match("20200101T090000|PT8H|monthly||1|4MO||||","$(var(ts){s.int})")) { xlog("L_INFO","Epoch $var(ts) matches with 4MO\n"); }else{ xlog("L_INFO","Epoch $var(ts) doesn't match with 4MO\n"); } $var(ts)="1585565225"; # Monday, March 30, 2020 10:47:05 if(tmrec_match("20200101T090000|PT8H|monthly||1|5MO||||","$(var(ts){s.int })")){ xlog("L_INFO","Epoch $var(ts) matches with 5MO\n"); }else{ xlog("L_INFO","Epoch $var(ts) doesn't match with 5MO\n"); } $var(ts)="1584960425"; # Monday, March 23, 2020 10:47:05 if(tmrec_match("20200101T090000|PT8H|monthly||1|-1MO||||","$(var(ts){s.int })")){ xlog("L_INFO","Epoch $var(ts) matches with -1MO\n"); }else{ xlog("L_INFO","Epoch $var(ts) doesn't match with -1MO\n"); } The results were: Epoch 1584355625 matches with 3MO Epoch 1584960425 matches with 4MO Epoch 1585565225 doesn't match with 5MO Epoch 1584960425 matches with -1MO Are we configuring the tmrec_match wrongly? -- Cumprimentos / Best regards, *David Gonçalves* Research and Development Technician Phone: +351 256 370 980 Email: david.goncalves(a)itcenter.com.pt

2 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 March 2020