April 2022 - sr-users - kamailio.org

Auth_ephemeral Module > username_format not accepted
by Luciano Motti 05 Apr '22

05 Apr '22

Hi! I was able to successfully use the auth_ephemeral module on my environment: Kamailio > Asterisk > ARI I ran into a problem with ARI, where Asterisk wouldn't send the complete from URI to ARI program, just the first part (timestamp), and the most important part (the username) isn't forwarded. For example: Kamailio username: 1649106119:1001 Asterisk only forwards 1649106119 to ARI, which makes it impossible for me to track the user. So I planned on using the deprecated username_format from Auth Ephemeral module: https://kamailio.org/docs/modules/4.1.x/modules/auth_ephemeral.html#auth_ep… By switching the timestamp with the username, my problems would be fixed. After setting the variable, and trying to register on Kamailio with username 1001:1649106119, I get an error message: SIP/2.0 400 Bad From URI Am I doing something wrong? Thanks!

2 2

Re: [SR-Users] More than TCP 800 concurrent calls, slows Kamailio (LUA FILE API REQUESTS)
by Henning Westerholt 05 Apr '22

05 Apr '22

Hello, please keep the list in CC, that others can comment as well. Beside from the obvious (improving the performance of the lua API call), you could use indeed asynchronous processing. If you just use the lua code to emit the REST request, using a native http client module would be probably also faster as doing it over lua. Cheers, Henning -- Henning Westerholt – https://skalatan.de/blog/ Kamailio services – https://gilawa.com<https://gilawa.com/> From: Giovanni Jose <gio.jose(a)gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2022 5:17 PM To: Henning Westerholt <hw(a)gilawa.com> Subject: Re: [SR-Users] More than TCP 800 concurrent calls, slows Kamailio (LUA FILE API REQUESTS) Hello Henning, Thanks so much for the fast response I just commented the loop and I was hitting the backend and it's slow anyway maybe it's because, for this type of implementation when the destination of the call is decided by the API backend, I need to use the http_async_client module? I am noticing that for high volume calls kamailio slows the traffic and shows errors because there's a delay that is been added when the backend responds for every call. On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 11:53 PM Henning Westerholt <hw(a)gilawa.com<mailto:hw@gilawa.com>> wrote: Hello, why are you sleeping for 1s in the loop? This will cause Kamailio to block processing. I also do not see any stop condition on the loop, so it will loop until the limit. Cheers, Henning -- Henning Westerholt – https://skalatan.de/blog/ Kamailio services – https://gilawa.com<https://gilawa.com/> From: sr-users <sr-users-bounces(a)lists.kamailio.org<mailto:sr-users-bounces@lists.kamailio.org>> On Behalf Of Giovanni Jose Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2022 9:46 PM To: sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org<mailto:sr-users@lists.kamailio.org> Subject: [SR-Users] More than TCP 800 concurrent calls, slows Kamailio (LUA FILE API REQUESTS) Hello Guys I am having this issue where kamailio is receiving requests from SIPp (we are currently testing the platform and doing QA) but if we do more than 800 concurrent calls kamailio starts failing and slowing the requests, The scenario is the following: I am sending 5000 calls at 100 CPS on TCP and I am having this route in the configuration file: # Handle the calls to api route[CALL_API] { xlog("L_NOTICE"," Call request $var(call_request) method: $rm \n"); $var(loop_true)=1; while ($var(loop_true)) { if(!lua_run("call_request","$var(call_request)","$sht(token=>new_token)")) { xlog("L_NOTICE", "SCRIPT: failed to execute lua function!\n"); } if ($var(loop_true)){ sleep("1"); } } xlog("L_NOTICE", "SCRIPT: Sucess to execute lua function!\n"); } So I am executing a LUA script for the requests and the API response will tell the destination of the call. At 800 concurrent calls, I can notice SLOWLINESS in the SIPp testing tool, and then I will start receiving 408 timeouts. This sounds like a load issue or something because I believe there's a time that it's been added every time we hit the backend and wait for the response. any help will be appreciated Regards Gio

2 1

Jansson question
by Barry Flanagan 05 Apr '22

05 Apr '22

Hi I am trying to use the jannson_get function to pull field "secret" from the below json: {"3":{"options":{"secret":"mybigsecret"}}} This works is I use jansson_get("3.options.secret"..... However, I need to know the value of "3" in order to use it. I have tried all the variations on path I can find, but none apart from using the actual root value work for me. How can I either: 1. Construct a PATH which will pick this up, or 2. Obtain this root value ("3" in my example) I have tried testing using https://jsonpath.com/ and a path of "$..secret" and "$..options.secret" works there, but not in jansson kamailio module. Any assistance much appreciated. Thanks -- -Barry

1 0

rpm.kamailio.org is down
by Riccardo Villa 05 Apr '22

05 Apr '22

Host is up and responding to ping but not to http requests. Riccardo -- -- NOTICE: This electronic mail transmission may contain confidential information and is intended only for the person(s) named. Any use, copying, or disclosure by any other person is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender via e-mail.

2 1

Asterisk, unable to find dialog for ACK with route param and call-id
by Trevor Peirce 05 Apr '22

05 Apr '22

Hello, I'm having some trouble with what I think is the dialog module. I've got Kamailio 5.5.4 running well for some time. Recently I added Asterisk to the mix and have come across an issue. Call to Kamailio. Kamailio sends it to Asterisk. Asterisk may decide to "forward" the call. To do this it will place a new outbound call through Kamailio. From the user perspective, this works absolutely fine (invite, ringing, ok, bye). The acc module handles it fine also. However dialog does not, and the events for ok and bye do not fire on the original call. They do fire for the forwarded call. I've added some logging output to try to isolate the problem, but I'm no further ahead. Here's what I have. Any suggestions? ** Call initiated ** INFO: <script>: onreply_route[MANAGE_REPLY] branch [0] rm=INVITE rs=100 ru=<null> tu=sip:destination@endpoint DLG_status=<null> dlg-h-id=3360 INFO: <script>: onreply_route[MANAGE_REPLY] branch [0] rm=INVITE rs=100 ru=<null> tu=sip:fwddest@0.0.0.1:5060 DLG_status=<null> dlg-h-id=12036 INFO: <script>: onreply_route[MANAGE_REPLY] branch [0] rm=INVITE rs=183 ru=<null> tu=sip:fwddest@0.0.0.1:5060 DLG_status=<null> dlg-h-id=12036 INFO: <script>: onreply_route[MANAGE_REPLY] branch [0] rm=INVITE rs=183 ru=<null> tu=sip:destination@endpoint DLG_status=<null> dlg-h-id=3360 INFO: <script>: onreply_route[MANAGE_REPLY] branch [0] rm=INVITE rs=200 ru=<null> tu=sip:fwddest@0.0.0.1:5060 DLG_status=<null> dlg-h-id=12036 CRITICAL: dialog [dlg_timer.c:200]: update_dlg_timer(): Trying to update a bogus dlg tl=0x7fa0494006e8 tl->next=(nil) tl->prev=(nil) ERROR: dialog [dlg_hash.c:1329]: update_dlg_timeout(): failed to update dialog lifetime CRITICAL: dialog [dlg_timer.c:200]: update_dlg_timer(): Trying to update a bogus dlg tl=0x7fa0494006e8 tl->next=(nil) tl->prev=(nil) ERROR: dialog [dlg_hash.c:1329]: update_dlg_timeout(): failed to update dialog lifetime ERROR: dialog [dlg_profile.c:1028]: dlg_set_timeout_by_profile(): Unable to set timeout on 3306:12036 NOTICE: acc [acc.c:270]: acc_log_request(): ACC: transaction answered: timestamp=1648611824;time_unix=1648611824.346;method=INVITE;from_tag=as292200a1;to_tag=as75834dc4;call_id=7cef233547dca0ac7882ce5249b3b54c;code=200;reason=OK INFO: <script>: onreply_route[MANAGE_REPLY] branch [0] rm=INVITE rs=200 ru=<null> tu=sip:destination@endpoint DLG_status=<null> dlg-h-id=<null> NOTICE: acc [acc.c:270]: acc_log_request(): ACC: transaction answered: timestamp=1648611824;time_unix=1648611824.354;method=INVITE;from_tag=as730369e7;to_tag=as3b06b3e2;call_id=53bad4f0034b61a5745163d82daef402;code=200;reason=OK INFO: <script>: onreply_route[MANAGE_REPLY] branch [0] rm=INVITE rs=200 ru=<null> tu=sip:destination@endpoint DLG_status=<null> dlg-h-id=<null> WARNING: dialog [dlg_handlers.c:1328]: dlg_onroute(): unable to find dialog for ACK with route param '161.02d' [353:3360] and call-id '53bad4f0034b61a5745163d82daef402' WARNING: dialog [dlg_handlers.c:1328]: dlg_onroute(): unable to find dialog for ACK with route param '161.02d' [353:3360] and call-id '53bad4f0034b61a5745163d82daef402' ** The call is answered and endpoints can talk to each other ** ** Now the original caller hangs up ** WARNING: dialog [dlg_handlers.c:1328]: dlg_onroute(): unable to find dialog for BYE with route param '161.02d' [353:3360] and call-id '53bad4f0034b61a5745163d82daef402' NOTICE: acc [acc.c:270]: acc_log_request(): ACC: transaction answered: timestamp=1648611831;time_unix=1648611831.933;method=BYE;from_tag=as730369e7;to_tag=as3b06b3e2;call_id=53bad4f0034b61a5745163d82daef402;code=200;reason=OK INFO: <script>: onreply_route[MANAGE_REPLY] branch [0] rm=INVITE rs=100 ru=<null> tu=sip:fwddest@0.0.0.1:5060 DLG_status=<null> dlg-h-id=12036 INFO: <script>: onreply_route[MANAGE_REPLY] branch [0] rm=INVITE rs=200 ru=<null> tu=sip:fwddest@0.0.0.1:5060 DLG_status=<null> dlg-h-id=12036 ERROR: <script>: got result for bye = Bye!; DLG_lifetime = 8 NOTICE: acc [acc.c:270]: acc_log_request(): ACC: transaction answered: timestamp=1648611832;time_unix=1648611832.115;method=BYE;from_tag=as292200a1;to_tag=as75834dc4;call_id=7cef233547dca0ac7882ce5249b3b54c;code=200;reason=OK ERROR: dialog [dlg_handlers.c:363]: dlg_terminated_confirmed(): failed to get dialog from params! ** Everything ends cleanly on the other SIP endpoints ** What can I do from here to try to isolate this further? Thanks, -- Trevor Peirce AcroVoice Solutions Inc

2 4

Kamailio as a SBC
by Nileshwar Goswami 05 Apr '22

05 Apr '22

Hi There, I'm looking out for an SBC and came across your platform. Can Kamailio work as a SBC and provide all the functionalities of a SBC ? A quick reply will be appreciated. Best Regards, Nileshwar Goswami

2 1

RTPENGINE : Kamailio - Get status if max sessions reached
by Youssef Boujraf 01 Apr '22

01 Apr '22

Dear, QUESTION : Through kamailio,We are using rtpengine_manage and the return value is true or false but don"t know for which reason. * How to be informed if rtpengine reach the maximum of sessions and will not accept any rtp routing ? * We have seen if rtpengine reached the max-session; The call is accept by kamailio and finally no audio because SDP not processed- kamailio.log Mar 29 16:08:14 kamailio /usr/sbin/kamailio[21065]: ALERT: {1 2 INVITE nIdGvZZNiFnt3_r0xSIKpQ..} <script>: [NATMANAGE] branch_id:0 ruri: sip:9919993@public:32617;transport=UDP;rinstance=f5d124565504bdb6, method:INVITE, status:<null>, extra_id: z9hG4bK-524287-1---290944f5547c740a0, rtpengine_manage: replace-origin replace-session-connection via-branch=extraMar 29 16:08:14 kamailio /usr/sbin/kamailio[21065]: DEBUG: {1 2 INVITE nIdGvZZNiFnt3_r0xSIKpQ..} rtpengine [rtpengine_funcs.c:144]: check_content_type(): type <application/sdp> found validMar 29 16:08:14 kamailio /usr/sbin/kamailio[21065]: DEBUG: {1 2 INVITE nIdGvZZNiFnt3_r0xSIKpQ..} rtpengine [rtpengine.c:1834]: build_rtpp_socks(): same rtpengines list version: 1 (1648562844)Mar 29 16:08:14 kamailio /usr/sbin/kamailio[21065]: DEBUG: {1 2 INVITE nIdGvZZNiFnt3_r0xSIKpQ..} rtpengine [rtpengine.c:3276]: select_rtpp_node_old(): rtpengine hash table lookup failed to find node for calllen=24 callid=nIdGvZZNiFnt3_r0xSIKpQ.. viabranch=z9hG4bK-524287-1---290944f5547c740a0Mar 29 16:08:14 kamailio /usr/sbin/kamailio[21065]: DEBUG: {1 2 INVITE nIdGvZZNiFnt3_r0xSIKpQ..} rtpengine [rtpengine.c:3167]: select_rtpp_node_new(): sum is = 27Mar 29 16:08:14 kamailio /usr/sbin/kamailio[21065]: DEBUG: {1 2 INVITE nIdGvZZNiFnt3_r0xSIKpQ..} rtpengine [rtpengine.c:2691]: rtpp_function_call(): proxy reply: d6:result10:load limit7:message30:Parallel session limit reachedeMar 29 16:08:14 kamailio /usr/sbin/kamailio[21065]: INFO: {1 2 INVITE nIdGvZZNiFnt3_r0xSIKpQ..} rtpengine [rtpengine.c:2715]: rtpp_function_call(): proxy udp:192.168.1.33:2223 has reached its load limit (Parallel session limit reached) - trying next oneMar 29 16:08:14 kamailio /usr/sbin/kamailio[21065]: DEBUG: {1 2 INVITE nIdGvZZNiFnt3_r0xSIKpQ..} rtpengine [rtpengine.c:1834]: build_rtpp_socks(): same rtpengines list version: 1 (1648562844) Mar 29 16:08:14 kamailio /usr/sbin/kamailio[21065]: DEBUG: {1 2 INVITE nIdGvZZNiFnt3_r0xSIKpQ..} rtpengine [rtpengine.c:3276]: select_rtpp_node_old(): rtpengine hash table lookup failed to find node for calllen=24 callid=nIdGvZZNiFnt3_r0xSIKpQ.. viabranch=z9hG4bK-524287-1---290944f5547c740a0 Mar 29 16:08:14 kamailio /usr/sbin/kamailio[21065]: DEBUG: {1 2 INVITE nIdGvZZNiFnt3_r0xSIKpQ..} rtpengine [rtpengine.c:3167]: select_rtpp_node_new(): sum is = 27 Mar 29 16:08:14 kamailio /usr/sbin/kamailio[21065]: DEBUG: {1 2 INVITE nIdGvZZNiFnt3_r0xSIKpQ..} rtpengine [rtpengine.c:2691]: rtpp_function_call(): proxy reply: d6:result10:load limit7:message30:Parallel session limit reachede Mar 29 16:08:14 kamailio /usr/sbin/kamailio[21065]: INFO: {1 2 INVITE nIdGvZZNiFnt3_r0xSIKpQ..} rtpengine [rtpengine.c:2715]: rtpp_function_call(): proxy udp:127.0.0.1:2223 has reached its load limit (Parallel session limit reached) - trying next one Mar 29 16:08:14 kamailio /usr/sbin/kamailio[21065]: DEBUG: {1 2 INVITE nIdGvZZNiFnt3_r0xSIKpQ..} rtpengine [rtpengine.c:1834]: build_rtpp_socks(): same rtpengines list version: 1 (1648562844) Mar 29 16:08:14 kamailio /usr/sbin/kamailio[21065]: DEBUG: {1 2 INVITE nIdGvZZNiFnt3_r0xSIKpQ..} rtpengine [rtpengine.c:3276]: select_rtpp_node_old(): rtpengine hash table lookup failed to find node for calllen=24 callid=nIdGvZZNiFnt3_r0xSIKpQ.. viabranch=z9hG4bK-524287-1---290944f5547c740a0 Mar 29 16:08:14 kamailio /usr/sbin/kamailio[21065]: DEBUG: {1 2 INVITE nIdGvZZNiFnt3_r0xSIKpQ..} rtpengine [rtpengine.c:3167]: select_rtpp_node_new(): sum is = 27 Mar 29 16:08:14 kamailio /usr/sbin/kamailio[21065]: INFO: {1 2 INVITE nIdGvZZNiFnt3_r0xSIKpQ..} rtpengine [rtpengine.c:2900]: rtpp_test(): rtpengine instance <udp:127.0.0.1:2223> found, support for it enabled Mar 29 16:08:14 kamailio /usr/sbin/kamailio[21065]: INFO: {1 2 INVITE nIdGvZZNiFnt3_r0xSIKpQ..} rtpengine [rtpengine.c:2900]: rtpp_test(): rtpengine instance <udp:192.168.1.33:2223> found, support for it enabled Mar 29 16:08:14 kamailio /usr/sbin/kamailio[21065]: DEBUG: {1 2 INVITE nIdGvZZNiFnt3_r0xSIKpQ..} rtpengine [rtpengine.c:3167]: select_rtpp_node_new(): sum is = 27 Mar 29 16:08:14 kamailio /usr/sbin/kamailio[21065]: ERROR: {1 2 INVITE nIdGvZZNiFnt3_r0xSIKpQ..} rtpengine [rtpengine.c:3330]: select_rtpp_node(): rtpengine failed to select new for calllen=24 callid=nIdGvZZNiFnt3_r0xSIKpQ.. Mar 29 16:08:14 kamailio /usr/sbin/kamailio[21065]: ERROR: {1 2 INVITE nIdGvZZNiFnt3_r0xSIKpQ..} rtpengine [rtpengine.c:2678]: rtpp_function_call(): no available proxies Mar 29 16:08:14 kamailio /usr/sbin/kamailio[21070]: ALERT: {2 2 INVITE nIdGvZZNiFnt3_r0xSIKpQ..} <script>: [NATMANAGE] branch_id:0 ruri: <null>, method:INVITE, status:100, extra_id: z9hG4bK-524287-1---290944f5547c740a0, rtpengine_manage: replace-origin replace-session-connection trust-address via-branch=extra Mar 29 16:08:14 kamailio /usr/sbin/kamailio[21069]: ALERT: {1 2 INVITE nIdGvZZNiFnt3_r0xSIKpQ..} <script>: [NATMANAGE] branch_id:1 ruri: sip:9919993@public:32617;transport=UDP;rinstance=f5d124565504bdb6, method:INVITE, status:<null>, extra_id: z9hG4bK-524287-1---290944f5547c740a0, rtpengine_manage: replace-origin replace-session-connection Mar 29 16:08:14 kamailio /usr/sbin/kamailio[21069]: DEBUG: {1 2 INVITE nIdGvZZNiFnt3_r0xSIKpQ..} rtpengine [rtpengine.c:1834]: build_rtpp_socks(): same rtpengines list version: 1 (1648562844) Mar 29 16:08:14 kamailio /usr/sbin/kamailio[21069]: DEBUG: {1 2 INVITE nIdGvZZNiFnt3_r0xSIKpQ..} rtpengine [rtpengine.c:3276]: select_rtpp_node_old(): rtpengine hash table lookup failed to find node for calllen=24 callid=nIdGvZZNiFnt3_r0xSIKpQ.. viabranch= Mar 29 16:08:14 kamailio /usr/sbin/kamailio[21069]: DEBUG: {1 2 INVITE nIdGvZZNiFnt3_r0xSIKpQ..} rtpengine [rtpengine.c:3167]: select_rtpp_node_new(): sum is = 27 Mar 29 16:08:14 kamailio /usr/sbin/kamailio[21069]: DEBUG: {1 2 INVITE nIdGvZZNiFnt3_r0xSIKpQ..} rtpengine [rtpengine.c:2691]: rtpp_function_call(): proxy reply: d7:warning38:Call-ID not found or tags didn't match6:result2:oke Mar 29 16:08:14 kamailio /usr/sbin/kamailio[21069]: DEBUG: {1 2 INVITE nIdGvZZNiFnt3_r0xSIKpQ..} rtpengine [rtpengine.c:2784]: rtpp_function_call(): rtpengine hash table insert node=udp:192.168.1.33:2223 for calllen=24 callid=nIdGvZZNiFnt3_r0xSIKpQ.. viabranch= Mar 29 16:08:14 kamailio /usr/sbin/kamailio[21069]: DEBUG: {1 2 INVITE nIdGvZZNiFnt3_r0xSIKpQ..} rtpengine [rtpengine.c:2801]: rtpp_function_call(): rtpengine hash table remove entry for callen=24 callid=nIdGvZZNiFnt3_r0xSIKpQ.. viabranch= - rtpengine.log : Mar 29 16:08:14 rtp01srv rtpengine[3921]: INFO: [nIdGvZZNiFnt3_r0xSIKpQ..]: [control] Received command 'offer' from 192.168.1.41:42822 Mar 29 16:08:14 rtp01srv rtpengine[3921]: DEBUG: [nIdGvZZNiFnt3_r0xSIKpQ..]: [control] Dump for 'offer' from 192.168.1.41:42822: { "supports": [ "load limit" ], "sdp": "v=0 Mar 29 16:08:14 rtp01srv rtpengine[3921]: o=Zoiper 141319690 1 IN IP4 192.168.30.216 Mar 29 16:08:14 rtp01srv rtpengine[3921]: s=Z Mar 29 16:08:14 rtp01srv rtpengine[3921]: c=IN IP4 192.168.30.216 Mar 29 16:08:14 rtp01srv rtpengine[3921]: t=0 0 Mar 29 16:08:14 rtp01srv rtpengine[3921]: m=audio 8000 RTP/AVP 0 101 8 3 97 Mar 29 16:08:14 rtp01srv rtpengine[3921]: a=rtpmap:101 telephone-event/8000 Mar 29 16:08:14 rtp01srv rtpengine[3921]: a=fmtp:101 0-16 Mar 29 16:08:14 rtp01srv rtpengine[3921]: a=rtpmap:97 iLBC/8000 Mar 29 16:08:14 rtp01srv rtpengine[3921]: a=fmtp:97 mode=30 Mar 29 16:08:14 rtp01srv rtpengine[3921]: a=sendrecv Mar 29 16:08:14 rtp01srv rtpengine[3921]: ", "replace": [ "origin", "session-connection" ], "call-id": "nIdGvZZNiFnt3_r0xSIKpQ..", "via-branch": "z9hG4bK-524287-1---290944f5547c740a0", "received-from": [ "IP4", "public" ], "from-tag": "75983054", "command": "offer" } Mar 29 16:08:14 rtp01srv rtpengine[3921]: ERR: [nIdGvZZNiFnt3_r0xSIKpQ..]: [core] Parallel session limit reached (2) Mar 29 16:08:14 rtp01srv rtpengine[3921]: INFO: [nIdGvZZNiFnt3_r0xSIKpQ..]: [control] Replying to 'offer' from 192.168.1.41:42822 (elapsed time 0.000058 sec) Mar 29 16:08:14 rtp01srv rtpengine[3921]: DEBUG: [nIdGvZZNiFnt3_r0xSIKpQ..]: [control] Response dump for 'offer' to 192.168.1.41:42822: { "result": "load limit", "message": "Parallel session limit reached" } Mar 29 16:08:14 rtp01srv rtpengine[3921]: INFO: [control] Received command 'ping' from 192.168.1.41:42822 Mar 29 16:08:14 rtp01srv rtpengine[3921]: DEBUG: [control] Dump for 'ping' from 192.168.1.41:42822: { "command": "ping" } Mar 29 16:08:14 rtp01srv rtpengine[3921]: INFO: [control] Replying to 'ping' from 192.168.1.41:42822 (elapsed time 0.000001 sec) Mar 29 16:08:14 rtp01srv rtpengine[3921]: DEBUG: [control] Response dump for 'ping' to 192.168.1.41:42822: { "result": "pong" } How to get this information then we could cancel the call or send sip message that the number of max call is reached ? -- Youssef

3 7