Hello,
im using kamaliio 5.5.3 and I want to do failedover routing with DNS SRV Records.
in my lab i have these SRV records
;; ANSWER SECTION:
voip.oov-obs-tools-dev.svc.cluster.local. 5 IN SRV 0 33 5060 100-68-7-74.voip.oov-obs-tools-dev.svc.cluster.local.
voip.oov-obs-tools-dev.svc.cluster.local. 5 IN SRV 0 33 5060 100-68-7-75.voip.oov-obs-tools-dev.svc.cluster.local.
voip.oov-obs-tools-dev.svc.cluster.local. 5 IN SRV 0 33 5060 100-68-7-76.voip.oov-obs-tools-dev.svc.cluster.local.
;; ADDITIONAL SECTION:
100-68-7-76.voip.oov-obs-tools-dev.svc.cluster.local. 5 IN A 100.68.7.76
100-68-7-75.voip.oov-obs-tools-dev.svc.cluster.local. 5 IN A 100.68.7.75
100-68-7-74.voip.oov-obs-tools-dev.svc.cluster.local. 5 IN A 100.68.7.74
my config script
use_dns_cache=on
use_dns_failover=on
dns_srv_lb=on
$du = "voip.oov-obs-tools-dev.svc.cluster.local";
t_relay();
after t_relay() is called the INVITE is send to one the 3 ips corresponding to fqdn but if the first ip does not
send response. the two others ips are not tried.
what i want is that all the ips resolved are tried until one succeeds.
is there something to do to achieve that ?
do i need to interact with failure route to try next ips ?
Thanks for help.
version: kamailio 5.5.3 (x86_64/linux)
flags: USE_TCP, USE_TLS, USE_SCTP, TLS_HOOKS, USE_RAW_SOCKS, DISABLE_NAGLE, USE_MCAST, DNS_IP_HACK, SHM_MMAP, PKG_MALLOC, Q_MALLOC, F_MALLOC, TLSF_MALLOC, DBG_SR_MEMORY, USE_FUTEX, FAST_LOCK-ADAPTIVE_WAIT, USE_DNS_CACHE, USE_DNS_FAILOVER, USE_NAPTR, USE_DST_BLOCKLIST, HAVE_RESOLV_RES, TLS_PTHREAD_MUTEX_SHARED
ADAPTIVE_WAIT_LOOPS 1024, MAX_RECV_BUFFER_SIZE 262144, MAX_URI_SIZE 1024, BUF_SIZE 65535, DEFAULT PKG_SIZE 8MB
poll method support: poll, epoll_lt, epoll_et, sigio_rt, select.
id: unknown
compiled with gcc 10.2.1
Hello guys,
I'm starting to try KEMI and i already hit a snag... right now i'm
simply testing with:
loadmodule "app_lua.so"
modparam("app_lua", "load", "/etc/kamailio/myscript.lua")
cfgengine "lua"
route {
lua_run("send_reply");
}
But i'm always getting:
0(118) ERROR: app_lua [app_lua_api.c:1633]: sr_kemi_lua_modf(): function
'sl_send_reply' is not available
I'm guessing that function is not exported by the module.. if that's the
case, how can i use it?
Regards,
David Villasmil
email: david.villasmil.work(a)gmail.com
phone: +34669448337
Just having a hard time trying to see if the Dispatcher module does LB when SRV records are used as the destination. Will the destinations be picked based on the SRV list or will it simply use the first name received?
Read lots of docs, but can't seem to figure it out
Thanks,
Nic.
Hello! I wish everyone who reads this message a good day.
I would appreciate some guidance with the configuration of my Kamailio.
Initially, I have the following architecture:
Endpoints <----Public IP----> Kamailio (listen PrivateIP advertise
PublicIP) <----Private IP----> Asterisk
CONFIG:
https://gist.github.com/Carlos-Escalona94/3a289af05b05c69ae563ab29c9ec4710
In general, calls initiated from outside the system work perfectly, but I
have a problem with calls initiated from Asterisk.
According to what I was able to investigate and understand, the problem
arises from the fact that Kamailio uses the public IP for the entire
routing system that involves the Record-Route and Route Headers. This in
turn causes Asterisk to get lost trying to send messages outside of the
INITIAL INVITE transaction, for example, the ACK response to the 200 Ok
received from the Endpoint since it tries to use Kamailio's public IP to
which Asterisk doesn't have access.
I tried to force Asterisk to send all messages to Kamailio's private IP
regardless of their nature, but it doesn't seem like an appropriate
solution.
On the other hand, I tried to modify the architecture a bit so that it was
something similar to this:
Endpoints <---- Public IP----> Kamailio (listen PrivateIP:P1 advertise
PublicIP) <---- PrivateIP-----> Kamailio (listen PrivateIP:P2) <----
PrivateIP ----> Asterisk
CONFIG:
https://gist.github.com/Carlos-Escalona94/4d681bb189c6190941d291965e123889
It seems to me that this would solve the problem, but I have two doubts
about this architecture, the first is that I would like to know if there is
an easier way to solve the problem that I am not considering, and on the
other hand, I have not found a way to identify from which interface is
receiving the message to perform the routing properly.
Thanks for the attention.
--
*Esta mensagem pode conter informação confidencial ou privilegiada, sendo
seu sigilo protegido por lei. Se você não for o destinatário ou a pessoa
autorizada a receber esta mensagem, não pode usar, copiar ou divulgar as
informações nela contidas ou tomar qualquer ação baseada nessas
informações. Se você recebeu esta mensagem por engano, por favor, avise
imediatamente ao remetente, respondendo o e-mail e em seguida apague-a.
Agradecemos sua cooperação.
**
*
*This message may contain confidential or
privileged information and its confidentiality is protected by law. If you
are not the addressed or authorized person to receive this message, you
must not use, copy, disclose or take any action based on it or any
information herein. If you have received this message by mistake, please
advise the sender immediately by replying the e-mail and then deleting it.
Thank you for your cooperation.
*
