sr-users July 2022

sr-users@lists.kamailio.org

44 participants
51 discussions

incomplete values and Wrong Counting for $hfl and $hflc

by Patrick Karton

the counting and values provided by $hfl and $hflc are wrong and incomplete from my understanding. looking at the source code these pseudo vars count the body values of Via, Record-Route and Route headers. in kamalio 5.6.1 with Record-Route: <sip:1.1.1.1;lr=on;nat=yes> Record-Route: <sip:2.2.2.2:5060;lr;transport=udp>,<sip:3.3.3.3:22506;lr;transport=udp> i get $hflc(Record-Route) == 2 instead of 3 and $(hfl(Record-Route)[0]) == 1.1.1.1 $(hfl(Record-Route)[1]) == 2.2.2.2 $(hfl(Record-Route)[3]) does not exists.

1 year, 9 months

Using Kamailio with Teams

by Javier González Muñoz

Hi, I'm using kamailio with Teams like SBC and asterisk. Works perfectly less one thing. When I make a call asterisk to Teams, in my Teams app I see 3 popup notifications, and 3 calls in my history. If I call Teams to Asterisk, perfect.. When I make an asterisk to Teams call, I get the trace from Asterisk and I can see three 180, I don't know if this is the problem, but are there any way to fix it? Limit to 1 notification? Thanks

1 year, 9 months

iterate trough all Record-Route values via @hf_value.Record_Route

by Patrick Karton

Hello All, i would to iterate through all ips in Record-Route through @hf_value.Record_Route. if i put static index like @hf_value.Record_Route[0] it works. but $var(i) = 0; @hf_value.Record_Route[$var(i)] does not work. is there a way to get the count of all headers values through @hf_value.Record_Route For example i would like to iterate through all Record-Route Values if i receive it like this Record-Route: <sip:1.1.1.1;lr=on;nat=yes> Record-Route: <sip:2.2.2.2:5060;lr>,<sip:3.3.3.3:22506;lr>

1 year, 9 months

siremis installation

by Fernando Piana

hello, My name is Fernando Piana from Colombia. I am writing to you because I am testing Kamailio together with the Siremis graphical environment. I was visiting the siremis.org website and also the siremis wiki, but I couldn't find the administration manual. >From this medium I want to ask you if you can send me a copy of the Siremis administration manual. I await a response. Thank you very much. -- Fernando Piana Ing. Comunicaciones y Bases de Datos Cel: +57 311 641 7558

1 year, 9 months

Using usrloc db_insert_update in a dmq replicated environment with shared db ?

by Matteo Brancaleoni

Hi, I was wondering if it is safe from a cache consistency pow to enable usrloc db_insert_update in a dmq replicated environment, where all registrars share the same db. I'm already using the filter option to avoid loading/deletion by server id, but there's no similar option for writing. I know that it is possible to use db mode 4 on all registrars (which get synced by dmq) except one, which will be responsible for writing, but this creates a little unbalanced setup in addition to performing writes only from one proxy. Any hint? Maybe is time to check how to filter writes, too :) ? Thanks, Matteo

1 year, 9 months

How to externally trigger htable cache flushing?

by Benoit Panizzon

Hi List We cache stuff like call forwarding information in a htable cache to minimizie SQL lookups and have it available via DMQ on all instances. But of course, if the call forwarding information for a destination changes in the database, we would like to flush either the whole cache, or even better, that single entry. What is the best way to do this? Mit freundlichen Grüssen -Benoît Panizzon- -- I m p r o W a r e A G - Leiter Commerce Kunden ______________________________________________________ Zurlindenstrasse 29 Tel +41 61 826 93 00 CH-4133 Pratteln Fax +41 61 826 93 01 Schweiz Web http://www.imp.ch ______________________________________________________

1 year, 9 months

dialog timeout_avp no longer works?

by Alex Balashov

Hi, I discovered recently that, on Kamailio 5.5.4 at least, the dialog ’timeout_avp’ no longer appears to have effect. Here are my (seemingly relevant) dialog parameters: modparam("dialog", "enable_stats", 0) modparam("dialog", "hash_size", 4096) modparam("dialog", "rr_param", "dlgcor") # DLG "correlator" modparam("dialog", "dlg_flag", 2) modparam("dialog", "default_timeout", 28800) # 8 hours modparam("dialog", "dlg_match_mode", 1) modparam("dialog", "table_name", "dialog") modparam("dialog", "send_bye", 1) modparam("dialog", "wait_ack", 0) modparam(“dialog”, “timeout_avp”, “$avp(dlg_timeout)”) The flow is roughly like this: request_route { ... t_check_trans(); if(is_method(“INVITE”)) { ... dlg_manage(); $avp(dlg_timeout) = 10; ... if(!t_relay()) sl_reply_error(); return; } I was able to resolve the problem by switching to dlg_set_timeout() instead, but I wonder if there has been a regression. Last version I have on which this positively works is 4.4.7, though, so not sure when it might have broken. One nuance: $avp(dlg_timeout) is not initialised prior to calling dlg_manage(), and the value is only set if certain conditions are true. Not sure if some stricter check appeared in later releases which could cause this to be a problem. Thank you! — 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/

1 year, 9 months

Nathelper sip ping and Path support ?

by matteo brancaleoni

Hello, I'm trying to setup the following scenario with sip ping: UAC -> Kamailio Edge -> Kamailio Registrar Edge proxy is a multihomed proxy with public/private ips and the registrar is a kamailio on a private network. The edge acts as a nat proxy and loadbalancer. Edge proxy inserts a Path header (and contact alias) which get correctly saved on registrar usrloc. Registration works as expected. Now, since I need to keep nat open towards the uacs and expire them when they're not reachable anymore, I'm trying to send sip pings from the registrar via the edge proxy. I'm using nathelper sipping in the registrar. What I see is that the registrar sends out a sip options putting in the Route header the Path as expected, but the sip packet gets sent directly to the UAC contact and not via the edge, as the Route header specifies. After looking into the nathelper code, it seems that the sip packet is sent via udp directly without any specific routing. So the question: it should work what I'm trying to achieve? Maybe not? Probably I can work around it setting the ;received in the contact on registrar (it will set to the edge proxy) and since the contact is aliased on the edge when the edge receives an option from the registrar it can process the alias and send it to the correct endpoint, but seems a workaround? Or using the keepalive module maybe, even if that means setting specific timers and manually do what the nathelper module already does? Any hint? Thanks, Matteo

1 year, 9 months

Does pure outbound RFC5626 work without edge proxies?

by Richard Chan

Hi sr-users, Does pure RFC5626 outbound work without an edge proxy->internal proxy design? By "pure" I mean no nathelper to rewrite addresses. I tried setting up the following: Configuration: use standard kamailio configuration without WITH_NAT (Ignore RTP-rtpengine/rtpproxy for the moment as I am just testing the control plane) 1. UA1 UA2 each behind NAT, with bogus Contact: headers 2. kamailio loaded with rr/tm (no outbound/path because I am using single proxy/registrar — without edge proxies) 3. no nathelper: no Contact rewriting, set_contact_alias etc 4. Both UA1 and UA2 establish persistent TLS to kamailio 5. INVITE/200 OK/ACK does work. 6. Contact headers show the NAT bogus addresses (as expected). UA1/UA2 are configured to be "dumb"(i.e. don't self-rewrite Contact:/SDP based on rport/received). Problem: 7. In-dialog requests don't work as kamailio tries to route to the bogus addresses per the Contact header. I.e. kamailio doesn't seem to resolve the UAs(bogus Contact addresses) to the persistent TLS connections. Now in the Route header I don't see any flow-token so probably kamailio is doing "normal" routing instead of RFC5626 routing (i.e. because it has no flow-token to match with an existing flow). This leads me to ask: for pure RFC5626 to work (no nathelper stuff at all) is it a must that there is a "edge-proxy--[1]-->internal-proxy" layout? ...and...the flow-tokens in [1] are what make it possible to skip bogus Contact: header and route to an existing flow? Regards Shih-Ping Chan

1 year, 9 months

KEMI: getting ksr_request_route not found or is not callable after t_relay()

by Nigel Daniels

``` def ksr_route_relay(self, msg): if KSR.is_method_in("IBSU"): if KSR.tm.t_is_set("branch_route") < 0: KSR.tm.t_on_branch("ksr_branch_manage") if KSR.is_method_in("ISU"): if KSR.tm.t_is_set("onreply_route") < 0: KSR.tm.t_on_reply("ksr_onreply_manage") if KSR.is_INVITE(): KSR.info("try and relay the traffic\n") if KSR.tm.t_is_set("ksr_failure_route") < 0: KSR.tm.t_on_failure("ksr_failure_manage") t_relay_result = KSR.tm.t_relay(["10.0.0.6", "5060"]) KSR.info(f't_relay: {t_relay_result}\n') KSR.info(f'MSG: {msg}') if KSR.tm.t_is_set("ksr_failure_route_one"): KSR.tm.t_on_reply("ksr_on_reply_route_one") ``` ERROR: app_python3 [python_exec.c:91]: apy_exec(): ksr_request_route not found or is not callable Again this only happens after t_replay is called. Any help understanding why this happens would be appreciated. -- - Nigel

1 year, 9 months

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 July 2022