sr-users October 2023

sr-users@lists.kamailio.org

47 participants
44 discussions

by satyaprakash ch

Hi, We are having an error in the Kamailio logs which we need to resolve this issue, ERROR is ::* /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[10149]: ERROR: tm [t_reply.c:1081]: run_failure_handlers(): error running run_top_route for failure handler.* We are getting this error at the time of the 3xx response, Can anyone help me on this? Thank you.

1 year, 1 month

Wrong RTP endpoint announced by Kamailio when forwarding calls, but looks correct from RTPEngine

by Leonardo Arena

Hi all, I have the following setup: Phone <-> private net using TCP transport <-> (172.30.0.156) Kamailio v5.6.3 + RTPEngine v9.3.1 (22.33.177.156) <-> public net using UDP transport <-> Asterisk (22.33.178.77) Phone is registered on Kamailio and forward calls on no answer or when ext is unregistered, to Asterisk's custom IVR (nodejs app + CouchDB), using failure_route() [1]. The problem is that when the none answer the phone and the call is redirected to Asterisk, Kamailio announce its private IP address in the SDP connection endpoint, hence there is no audio [2]. From RTPEngine debug logs, it seems that RTPEngine replies with the correct SDP connection endpoint IP [3]. See also RTPEngine interfaces definition [4]. What am I missing? Why Kamailio is offering its private IP address in the SDP connection, instead of its public address when forwarding the call? If comment "route(SDP_MANAGE_IN)" in route[IN], Kamailio uses the correct IP endpoint address in the SDP offer when forwarding the call to Asterisk. But of course this breaks audio when someone answer the phone. It seems that Kamailio is storing the initial SDP offer settings and does not update it upon RTPEngine's request, even though I have added "replace-session-connection" in route[SDP_OFFER_IVR]. Thanks for any help! leo [1] route[IN] { if (!lookup('location')) { t_on_reply("SDP_MANAGE"); route(TOIVR); } else { xlog("L_INFO", "Route(IN) Req $mi $rm From <$fu> To <$tu> RURI <$ru>\n"); record_route(); t_on_reply("SDP_MANAGE"); route(SDP_MANAGE_IN); t_on_failure("TOIVR"); t_relay(); exit; } } route[SDP_MANAGE] { if (has_body("application/sdp")) { rtpengine_manage(); } } route[SDP_MANAGE_IN] { if (has_body("application/sdp")) { rtpengine_manage("direction=public direction=private via-branch=1"); } } ... route[SDP_OFFER_IVR] { if (has_body("application/sdp")) { rtpengine_offer("direction=public direction=public replace-session-connection via-branch=1"); } } failure_route[TOIVR] { if (t_is_canceled()) { exit; } append_branch(); route(SDP_OFFER_IVR); # using t_relay_to so that UDP is used with the correct IP address if (!t_relay_to("xh.voip.net")) { xlog("L_INFO", "No answer - Failure Route(TOIVR) Req $mi $rm From <$fu> To <$tu> RURI <$ru> failed\n"); t_reply("500", "Unable to route"); } else { xlog("L_INFO", "No answer - Failure Route(TOIVR) Req $mi $rm From <$fu> To <$tu> RURI <$ru>\n"); } } [2] U 2023/10/11 09:05:43.797393 22.33.177.156:5060 -> 22.33.176.8:5060 #3 SIP/2.0 180 Ringing. Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 22.33.176.8;branch=z9hG4bK2cb2.e559c4a326678f69ae9b4656be7bc36c.0. Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 22.33.176.20;branch=z9hG4bK2cb2.2920561c845ee5279051359f40cb7c0f.0. Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 44.55.73.157:5060;branch=z9hG4bK0cBdccef20c0d8bfefb. Record-Route: <sip:172.30.0.156;transport=TCP;r2=on;lr=on;ftag=gK0c1bb12e>. Record-Route: <sip:22.33.177.156;r2=on;lr=on;ftag=gK0c1bb12e>. Record-Route: <sip:22.33.176.8;lr=on;ftag=gK0c1bb12e;did=7ffe.26c8>. Record-Route: <sip:22.33.176.20;lr=on;ftag=gK0c1bb12e>. From: "Unavailable" <sip:013335553222@44.55.73.157>;tag=gK0c1bb12e. To: <sip:8555000033@22.33.176.20>;tag=660096088. Call-ID: 474758100_116775912(a)44.55.73.157. CSeq: 704680 INVITE. Contact: <sip:+18555000033@172.30.96.2:11815;transport=TCP>. Allow: INVITE, INFO, PRACK, ACK, BYE, CANCEL, OPTIONS, NOTIFY, REGISTER, SUBSCRIBE, REFER, PUBLISH, UPDATE, MESSAGE. User-Agent: Yealink SIP-T31P 124.86.0.40. Allow-Events: talk,hold,conference,refer,check-sync. Content-Length: 0. . U 2023/10/11 09:06:03.751585 22.33.177.156:5060 -> 22.33.178.77:5060 #4 INVITE sip:+18555000033@172.30.96.2:11815;transport=TCP SIP/2.0. Record-Route: <sip:22.33.177.156;lr=on;ftag=gK0c1bb12e>. Record-Route: <sip:22.33.176.8;lr=on;ftag=gK0c1bb12e;did=7ffe.26c8>. Record-Route: <sip:22.33.176.20;lr=on;ftag=gK0c1bb12e>. Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 22.33.177.156;branch=z9hG4bK2cb2.afb825e30e294872c72c5e21ef26f3f3.1. Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 22.33.176.8;branch=z9hG4bK2cb2.e559c4a326678f69ae9b4656be7bc36c.0. Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 22.33.176.20;branch=z9hG4bK2cb2.2920561c845ee5279051359f40cb7c0f.0. Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 44.55.73.157:5060;branch=z9hG4bK0cBdccef20c0d8bfefb. f: "Unavailable" <sip:013335553222@44.55.73.157>;tag=gK0c1bb12e. t: <sip:8555000033@22.33.176.20>. i: 474758100_116775912(a)44.55.73.157. CSeq: 704680 INVITE. Max-Forwards: 32. Allow: INVITE,ACK,CANCEL,BYE,REGISTER,REFER,INFO,SUBSCRIBE,NOTIFY,PRACK,UPDATE,OPTIONS,MESSAGE,PUBLISH. Accept: application/sdp, application/isup, application/dtmf, application/dtmf-relay, multipart/mixed. m: "Unavailable" <sip:013335553222@44.55.73.157:5060>. Remote-Party-ID: "Unavailable" <sip:013335553222@44.55.73.157:5060>;privacy=off. k: timer,100rel,precondition. Session-Expires: 1800. Min-SE: 90. l: 604. Content-Disposition: session; handling=required. c: application/sdp. . v=0. o=Sonus_UAC 525653 764118 IN IP4 44.55.73.157. s=SIP Media Capabilities. c=IN IP4 172.30.0.156. t=0 0. m=audio 30030 RTP/AVP 0 18 101. a=maxptime:20. a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000. a=rtpmap:18 G729/8000. a=fmtp:18 annexb=n [3] Oct 11 09:06:03 voipsipr7 daemon.info rtpengine[35061]: INFO: [474758100_116775912(a)44.55.73.157]: [control] Received command 'offer' from 127.0.0.1:39942 Oct 11 09:06:03 voipsipr7 daemon.debug rtpengine[35061]: DEBUG: [474758100_116775912(a)44.55.73.157]: [control] Dump for 'offer' from 127.0.0.1:39942: { "supports": [ "load limit" ], "sdp": "v=0^M o=Sonus_UAC 5 25653 764118 IN IP4 44.55.73.157^M s=SIP Media Capabilities^M c=IN IP4 44.55.78.60^M t=0 0^M m=audio 61610 RTP/AVP 0 18 101^M a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000^M a=rtpmap:18 G729/8000^M a=fmtp:18 annexb=no^M a=rtpmap:101 telephone-event/8000^M a=fmtp:101 0-15^M a=sendrecv^M a=maxptime:20^M ", "direction": [ "public", "public" ], "replace": [ "session-connection" ], "call-id": "474758100_116775912(a)44.55.73.157 ... Oct 11 09:06:03 voipsipr7 daemon.debug rtpengine[35061]: DEBUG: [474758100_116775912(a)44.55.73.157]: ... ", "via-branch": "z9hG4bK2cb2.e559c4a326678f69ae9b4656be7bc36c.0", "received-from": [ "IP4", "22.33.176 .8" ], "from-tag": "gK0c1bb12e", "command": "offer" } ... Oct 11 09:06:03 voipsipr7 daemon.info rtpengine[35061]: INFO: [474758100_116775912(a)44.55.73.157]: [control] Replying to 'offer' from 127.0.0.1:39942 (elapsed time 0.000638 sec) Oct 11 09:06:03 voipsipr7 daemon.debug rtpengine[35061]: DEBUG: [474758100_116775912(a)44.55.73.157]: [control] Response dump for 'offer' to 127.0.0.1:39942: { "sdp": "v=0^M o=Sonus_UAC 525653 764118 IN IP4 207 .223.73.157^M s=SIP Media Capabilities^M c=IN IP4 22.33.177.156^M t=0 0^M m=audio 30068 RTP/AVP 0 18 101^M a=maxptime:20^M a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000^M a=rtpmap:18 G729/8000^M a=fmtp:18 annexb=no^M a=rtpmap:101 teleph one-event/8000^M a=fmtp:101 0-15^M a=sendrecv^M a=rtcp:30069^M ", "result": "ok" } Oct 11 09:06:03 voipsipr7 daemon.info /usr/sbin/kamailio[35261]: INFO: <script>: No answer - Failure Route(TOIVR) Req 4 INVITE From <sip:013335553222@44.55.73.157> To <sip:8555000033@22.33.176.20> RURI <sip: +18555000033@172.30.96.2:11815;transport=TCP> Oct 11 09:06:03 voipsipr7 daemon.info rtpengine[35061]: INFO: [474758100_116775912(a)44.55.73.157]: [control] Received command 'answer' from 127.0.0.1:53245 Oct 11 09:06:03 voipsipr7 daemon.debug rtpengine[35061]: DEBUG: [474758100_116775912(a)44.55.73.157]: [control] Dump for 'answer' from 127.0.0.1:53245: { "supports": [ "load limit" ], "sdp": "v=0^M o=- 525653 7 64120 IN IP4 22.33.178.77^M s=Asterisk^M c=IN IP4 22.33.178.77^M t=0 0^M m=audio 11264 RTP/AVP 0 101^M a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000^M a=rtpmap:101 telephone-event/8000^M a=fmtp:101 0-16^M a=ptime:20^M a=maxptime:150^M a=sendrecv^M m=audio 0 RTP/AVP 0 18 101^M ", "call-id": "474758100_116775912(a)44.55.73.157", "received-from": [ "IP4", "22.33.178.77" ], "from-tag": "gK0c1bb12e", "to-tag": "a21c53b6-ca33-43b ... Oct 11 09:06:03 voipsipr7 daemon.debug rtpengine[35061]: DEBUG: [474758100_116775912(a)44.55.73.157]: ... 4-a585-af9b568a5ecb", "command": "answer" } ... Oct 11 09:06:03 voipsipr7 daemon.info rtpengine[35061]: INFO: [474758100_116775912(a)44.55.73.157]: [control] Replying to 'answer' from 127.0.0.1:53245 (elapsed time 0.000915 sec) Oct 11 09:06:03 voipsipr7 daemon.debug rtpengine[35061]: DEBUG: [474758100_116775912(a)44.55.73.157]: [control] Response dump for 'answer' to 127.0.0.1:53245: { "sdp": "v=0^M o=- 525653 764120 IN IP4 22.33.178 .77^M s=Asterisk^M c=IN IP4 22.33.177.156^M t=0 0^M m=audio 30056 RTP/AVP 0 101^M a=maxptime:150^M a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000^M a=rtpmap:101 telephone-event/8000^M a=fmtp:101 0-16^M a=sendrecv^M a=rtcp:30057^M a=ptime :20^M m=audio 0 RTP/AVP 0 18 101^M ", "result": "ok" } Oct 11 09:06:03 voipsipr7 daemon.debug rtpengine[35061]: DEBUG: [474758100_116775912(a)44.55.73.157]: [core] Forward to sink endpoint: 22.33.178.77:11264 (RTP seq 0 TS 0) [4] Interface definition in RTPEngine: interface = public/22.33.177.156;public/22:33:201:105::156;private/172.30.0.156

1 year, 1 month

Switching DMQ transport to TCP?

by Benoit Panizzon

Hi Gang While still hunting DMQ issues, I noticed that the OS is reporting UDP drops. Maybe DMQ packets? Would DMQ re-send a lost packet? I increased OS UDP RX buffers times 10 and monitoring counters. I also found that DMQ can use tcp or tls as transport. Could this help to prevent loosing DMQ messages? Or is this prone to cause new issues? 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, 1 month

UDP Fragmentation webRTC/UDP Call

by Social Boh

Hello, I'm trying to solve a problem with calls WebRTC/UDP. I think is a fragmentation problem because udp/webRTC calls works without problem. The INVITE from Kamailio to the UDP device not receive any type of answer. I'm trying to reduce the SDP annex size using: |sdp_remove_line_by_prefix| for some lines unsuccessfully. Maybe I don't know where put this function in the script. Or, is there another way to solve this issue? Thank you in advance Regards -- --- I'm SoCIaL, MayBe

1 year, 1 month

Dialog Module: enable_dmq and multiple nodes update SAME profiles_with_value counter?

by Benoit Panizzon

Hi Team I'm still hunting down DMQ dialog issues. https://www.kamailio.org/docs/modules/devel/modules/dialog.html#dialog.p.en… Quote: "Notably, it is not possible to send in-dialog requests on any but the original proxy instance." I make sure, that if a procied call (with same callID) is being redirected from anywhere, it is send to the came dialog aware kamailio instance it originated from. This seems to have fixed a lot of issues with dialogues getting corrupted. The two main purposed we use dialog is: * CDR * Channel Counting / Limiting modparam("dialog", "profiles_with_value", "custprofilecounter"); Can a such profile WITH value be written from any node sharing dialog via DMQ or is this bound to cause troubes? Example. Two call get to same customer, but over two different nodes. Node A is getting a call: set_dlg_profile("custprofilecounter","Customer7664"); get_profile_size("custprofilecounter","Customer7664","$var(busy_count)"); => $var(busy_count) is now 1. The profile is replicated to Node B and the value can be accessed there. While Call on Node A is running, Node B is getting a call to same customer: set_dlg_profile("custprofilecounter","Customer7664"); get_profile_size("custprofilecounter","Customer7664","$var(busy_count)"); => $var(busy_count) is now 2 on Node B. Is this value being replicated BACK to Node A where the profile counter originally was created? As far as I have experienced, this is the case. But what happens if the call on Node B is ending before the Call on Node A? Will the counter being decreased also correctly be replicated to Node A? What happens the other way round? What happens if both call end at the same time? Is a race condition possible, or is there some sort of locking to prevent this? Can I use profiles_with_value the way I use them? Or is this bound to fail because it's not supported? 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, 1 month

Discrepancy between RPC stats and real data from the UAC module

by Denys Pozniak

Hello! We use the UAC module for outbound registrations and when we try to get RPC statistics we see that the data does not match, what could be the reason? # kamcmd stats.get_statistics uac: uac:regactive = 14 uac:regdisabled = 0 uac:regtotal = 0 # kamctl rpc uac.reg_dump | grep flag | grep 20 -c 745 # kamailio -v version: kamailio 5.6.4 (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 -- BR, Denys Pozniak

1 year, 1 month

Re: Crypto module AES algorithm details

by Henning Westerholt

(Please keep the list in CC) Hello, The web tools might use another logic internally. I had some success with a java library use case and also with PostgreSQL, I think. A usual use-case is to have an encrypted password value in a DB, for data at rest encryption. The password is encrypted from something else. Then inside the Kamailio cfg you want to encrypt it on the fly, to use it for example for challenging a phone with username/password. Maybe you can give it a try with some python or other script languages, where you can play with the different crypto system parameter more easily. Cheers, Henning -- Henning Westerholt – https://skalatan.de/blog/ Kamailio services – https://gilawa.com<https://gilawa.com/> From: Jayesh Nambiar <jayesh1017(a)gmail.com> Sent: Donnerstag, 5. Oktober 2023 06:41 To: Henning Westerholt <hw(a)gilawa.com> Subject: Re: [SR-Users] Crypto module AES algorithm details Hello Henning, Thanks for the super fast reply. I tested this within kamailio 5.3.4 and I can successfully encrypt a header value and also the same encrypted value decrypts to proper plain text when. But when I compare the encrypted text with online resources like https://www.devglan.com/online-tools/aes-encryption-decryption and https://www.javainuse.com/aesgenerator, their encrypted text value is different from what I see from kamailio. Both these resources produce the same encrypted text while the encrypted text from kamailio is different. How do I validate this? My use case is as follows: -- I get an encrypted text in a SIP Header -- I decrypt it and validate it against some DB -- If valid proceed or else exit Now if the algorithm doesnt match exactly, there are chances of error, hence asking question on how to validate it. On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 1:43 PM Henning Westerholt <hw(a)gilawa.com<mailto:hw@gilawa.com>> wrote: Hello Jayesh, AFAIK its uses AES 256 with CBC mode. The IV is generated from OpenSSL, e.g. https://www.openssl.org/docs/man3.0/man3/EVP_BytesToKey.html For newer versions I have added the init_vector functionality to enable interoperability with other crypto functions, e.g. some databases, java frameworks etc. If you want to use this functionality, I’d suggest to update, as the 5.3. is also end of life since some time. Otherwise you can of course also backport this feature. Cheers, Henning -- Henning Westerholt – https://skalatan.de/blog/ Kamailio services – https://gilawa.com<https://gilawa.com/> From: Jayesh Nambiar via sr-users <sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org<mailto:sr-users@lists.kamailio.org>> Sent: Mittwoch, 4. Oktober 2023 08:54 To: Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List <sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org<mailto:sr-users@lists.kamailio.org>> Cc: Jayesh Nambiar <jayesh1017(a)gmail.com<mailto:jayesh1017@gmail.com>> Subject: [SR-Users] Crypto module AES algorithm details Hello, I am running kamailio-5.3.4 on one of my setup and I intend to use the crypto module in the same. I wanted to understand the following details when the module is used: I understand it uses the AES algorithm, is that correct? Does it use AES 128, 192 or 256 bit algorithms? Does it use CBC or ECB mode for AES? The 5.3 version does not have an parameter for init-vector, so does kamailio use any init vector internally in this case? When i compared the encrypted text that kamailio produces and the ones available online, they were producing different outputs even when same shared secret was used. Hence asking for more clarification PS: Upgrading kamailio is my very last option as this is one af an old setup which only needs this feature without much changes. Thanks for any valuable response. -- Jayesh

1 year, 1 month

503(service unavailable)

by masoud96＠mail.ru

Hello! It often happens to me that the service begins to refuse service (503) and so far I have not been able to understand the exact reason. Typically, before clients start receiving 503, many before them receive a 408 code. As soon as the service starts responding with 503, it does not recover on its own, you have to restart. There is no way to understand from the logs what led to this (nothing unusual). My server is powerful enough for the number of users of my service (what I mean is that there is no problem with resources). For example, 64 cores, 125GB of DDR4 RAM, 2TB of disk, of which 1TB SSD for the database, 10Gigabit channel, this is only a server for Kamailio for Rtpengines separate servers. Please help me figure out what causes a service failure!? OS: Debian 11, 64 cores, 125GB of DDR4 RAM; DB: MariaDB 10.5.15; kamailio -v version: kamailio 5.5.3 (x86_64/linux) 473cef 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. udp_children: 30; tcp_children: 34; TLS: YES; async_workers: 64. Incoming calls are sent via push notifications( Federico Cabiddu method: https://www.voztovoice.org/sites/default/files/KamilioWorld2015%20-Federico…). NetBridging(for SIP and RTPEngine). ims_charging for billing (integration with our billing system using the Diameter protocol). In the logs exactly at the moment when the service began to refuse, the recording disappears completely for 7 minutes, absolutely no entries, after which the recording of the TCP queue full begins. Oct 3 18:38:07 sip1-life3 kamailio[3380553]: CRITICAL: {2 3691 INVITE 672699d1-c76b-4153-b72a-fe647913a9e9} tm [../../core/forward.h:292]: msg_send_buffer(): tcp_send failed Oct 3 18:38:09 sip1-life3 kamailio[3380539]: CRITICAL: {2 3691 INVITE 672699d1-c76b-4153-b72a-fe647913a9e9} tm [../../core/forward.h:292]: msg_send_buffer(): tcp_send failed Oct 3 18:38:12 sip1-life3 kamailio[3380534]: CRITICAL: {2 30106 INVITE 032f8650-1d90-49ed-82f1-c50ccbef191d} tm [../../core/forward.h:292]: msg_send_buffer(): tcp_send failed Oct 3 18:45:14 sip1-life3 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[3380778]: CRITICAL: [core/tcp_main.c:4170]: send2child(): tcp child 11, socket 224: queue full, 285 requests queued (total handled 2899418) Oct 3 18:45:15 sip1-life3 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[3380778]: CRITICAL: [core/tcp_main.c:4170]: send2child(): tcp child 1, socket 204: queue full, 286 requests queued (total handled 2964063) Oct 3 18:45:15 sip1-life3 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[3380778]: CRITICAL: [core/tcp_main.c:4170]: send2child(): tcp child 4, socket 210: queue full, 286 requests queued (total handled 2923484) Oct 3 18:45:15 sip1-life3 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[3380778]: CRITICAL: [core/tcp_main.c:4170]: send2child(): tcp child 6, socket 214: queue full, 286 requests queued (total handled 2911633) Oct 3 18:45:15 sip1-life3 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[3380778]: CRITICAL: [core/tcp_main.c:4170]: send2child(): tcp child 7, socket 216: queue full, 286 requests queued (total handled 2907132) Oct 3 18:45:15 sip1-life3 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[3380778]: CRITICAL: [core/tcp_main.c:4170]: send2child(): tcp child 8, socket 218: queue full, 286 requests queued (total handled 2903281) Oct 3 18:45:15 sip1-life3 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[3380778]: CRITICAL: [core/tcp_main.c:4170]: send2child(): tcp child 9, socket 220: queue full, 286 requests queued (total handled 2903438) Oct 3 18:45:15 sip1-life3 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[3380778]: CRITICAL: [core/tcp_main.c:4170]: send2child(): tcp child 11, socket 224: queue full, 286 requests queued (total handled 2899419) Oct 3 18:45:15 sip1-life3 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[3380778]: CRITICAL: [core/tcp_main.c:4170]: send2child(): tcp child 12, socket 226: queue full, 286 requests queued (total handled 2897842) Oct 3 18:45:16 sip1-life3 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[3380778]: CRITICAL: [core/tcp_main.c:4170]: send2child(): tcp child 16, socket 234: queue full, 286 requests queued (total handled 2895429) Oct 3 18:45:16 sip1-life3 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[3380778]: CRITICAL: [core/tcp_main.c:4170]: send2child(): tcp child 17, socket 236: queue full, 286 requests queued (total handled 2895303) Oct 3 18:45:16 sip1-life3 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[3380778]: CRITICAL: [core/tcp_main.c:4170]: send2child(): tcp child 22, socket 246: queue full, 286 requests queued (total handled 2891873) Oct 3 18:45:16 sip1-life3 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[3380778]: CRITICAL: [core/tcp_main.c:4170]: send2child(): tcp child 26, socket 254: queue full, 286 requests queued (total handled 2892619) Oct 3 18:45:16 sip1-life3 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[3380778]: CRITICAL: [core/tcp_main.c:4170]: send2child(): tcp child 27, socket 256: queue full, 286 requests queued (total handled 2891769) Oct 3 18:45:16 sip1-life3 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[3380778]: ERROR: [core/tcp_main.c:3458]: send_fd_queue_run(): send_fd failed on socket 224 , queue entry 0, retries 98, connection 0x7f0b6d974348, tcp so Oct 3 18:45:16 sip1-life3 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[3380778]: CRITICAL: [core/tcp_main.c:4170]: send2child(): tcp child 30, socket 262: queue full, 286 requests queued (total handled 2891614) Oct 3 18:45:16 sip1-life3 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[3380778]: CRITICAL: [core/tcp_main.c:4170]: send2child(): tcp child 31, socket 264: queue full, 286 requests queued (total handled 2890778) Oct 3 18:45:16 sip1-life3 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[3380778]: CRITICAL: [core/tcp_main.c:4170]: send2child(): tcp child 33, socket 268: queue full, 286 requests queued (total handled 2890852) Oct 3 18:45:16 sip1-life3 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[3380778]: CRITICAL: [core/tcp_main.c:4170]: send2child(): tcp child 0, socket 202: queue full, 287 requests queued (total handled 3071438) Oct 3 18:45:17 sip1-life3 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[3380778]: CRITICAL: [core/tcp_main.c:4170]: send2child(): tcp child 1, socket 204: queue full, 287 requests queued (total handled 2964064) Oct 3 18:45:17 sip1-life3 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[3380778]: CRITICAL: [core/tcp_main.c:4170]: send2child(): tcp child 2, socket 206: queue full, 287 requests queued (total handled 2944928) Oct 3 18:45:17 sip1-life3 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[3380778]: CRITICAL: [core/tcp_main.c:4170]: send2child(): tcp child 4, socket 210: queue full, 287 requests queued (total handled 2923485) Oct 3 18:45:17 sip1-life3 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[3380778]: CRITICAL: [core/tcp_main.c:4170]: send2child(): tcp child 5, socket 212: queue full, 287 requests queued (total handled 2915778) Oct 3 18:45:17 sip1-life3 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[3380778]: CRITICAL: [core/tcp_main.c:4170]: send2child(): tcp child 6, socket 214: queue full, 287 requests queued (total handled 2911634) Oct 3 18:45:17 sip1-life3 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[3380778]: CRITICAL: [core/tcp_main.c:4170]: send2child(): tcp child 7, socket 216: queue full, 287 requests queued (total handled 2907133) Oct 3 18:45:17 sip1-life3 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[3380778]: CRITICAL: [core/tcp_main.c:4170]: send2child(): tcp child 8, socket 218: queue full, 287 requests queued (total handled 2903282) Oct 3 18:45:17 sip1-life3 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[3380778]: CRITICAL: [core/tcp_main.c:4170]: send2child(): tcp child 9, socket 220: queue full, 287 requests queued (total handled 2903439) Oct 3 18:45:17 sip1-life3 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[3380778]: CRITICAL: [core/tcp_main.c:4170]: send2child(): tcp child 10, socket 222: queue full, 287 requests queued (total handled 2900227) Oct 3 18:45:17 sip1-life3 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[3380778]: CRITICAL: [core/tcp_main.c:4170]: send2child(): tcp child 11, socket 224: queue full, 287 requests queued (total handled 2899420) Oct 3 18:45:17 sip1-life3 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[3380778]: CRITICAL: [core/tcp_main.c:4170]: send2child(): tcp child 12, socket 226: queue full, 287 requests queued (total handled 2897843) Oct 3 18:45:17 sip1-life3 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[3380778]: ERROR: [core/tcp_main.c:3458]: send_fd_queue_run(): send_fd failed on socket 204 , queue entry 0, retries 88, connection 0x7f0b742a1968, tcp so Oct 3 18:45:17 sip1-life3 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[3380778]: CRITICAL: [core/tcp_main.c:4170]: send2child(): tcp child 13, socket 228: queue full, 287 requests queued (total handled 2896210) Oct 3 18:45:17 sip1-life3 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[3380778]: ERROR: [core/tcp_main.c:3458]: send_fd_queue_run(): send_fd failed on socket 210 , queue entry 0, retries 86, connection 0x7f0b74ffaa08, tcp so Oct 3 18:45:17 sip1-life3 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[3380778]: CRITICAL: [core/tcp_main.c:4170]: send2child(): tcp child 16, socket 234: queue full, 287 requests queued (total handled 2895430) Oct 3 18:45:17 sip1-life3 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[3380778]: ERROR: [core/tcp_main.c:3458]: send_fd_queue_run(): send_fd failed on socket 214 , queue entry 0, retries 88, connection 0x7f0b75003218, tcp so Oct 3 18:45:17 sip1-life3 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[3380778]: ERROR: [core/tcp_main.c:3458]: send_fd_queue_run(): send_fd failed on socket 216 , queue entry 1, retries 86, connection 0x7f0b75007620, tcp so Oct 3 18:45:17 sip1-life3 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[3380778]: ERROR: [core/tcp_main.c:3458]: send_fd_queue_run(): send_fd failed on socket 218 , queue entry 2, retries 84, connection 0x7f0b74772f70, tcp so Oct 3 18:45:17 sip1-life3 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[3380778]: CRITICAL: [core/tcp_main.c:4170]: send2child(): tcp child 17, socket 236: queue full, 287 requests queued (total handled 2895304) Oct 3 18:45:17 sip1-life3 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[3380778]: ERROR: [core/tcp_main.c:3458]: send_fd_queue_run(): send_fd failed on socket 220 , queue entry 0, retries 87, connection 0x7f0b74777378, tcp so Oct 3 18:45:17 sip1-life3 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[3380778]: ERROR: [core/tcp_main.c:3458]: send_fd_queue_run(): send_fd failed on socket 224 , queue entry 1, retries 83, connection 0x7f0b7477fb88, tcp so Oct 3 18:45:17 sip1-life3 /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[3380778]: CRITICAL: [core/tcp_main.c:4170]: send2child(): tcp child 21, socket 244: queue full, 287 requests queued (total handled 2893042)

1 year, 1 month

183 Session Progress Acknowledgment

by Ali Taher

Hello, Is there a way to send PRACK as reply to a 183 Session Progress (with Require: 100rel) sent to Kamailio sip proxy? Regards,

1 year, 1 month

Kamailio as SIP proxy

by Ali Taher

Hello, I'm using Kamailio as SIP proxy between Session Manager and SBC So here is the scenario : Session Manager sends a call (Invite) to Kamailio, kamailio needs to relay it to SBC after doing some modification. (-----Session Manager-----) ----------- > (----Kamailio----) ----------- > (-----SBC-----) My routing logic is similar to the below: route{ if ((method==OPTIONS) && (! uri=~"sip:.*[@]+.*")) { options_reply(); } if (is_method("INVITE")) { sql_query("cb", "select number from pool1 order by random() limit 1", "ra"); $var(rand)=$dbr(ra=>[0,0]); uac_replace_from($var(rand),"sip:$var(rand)@192.168.1.1"); xlog("L_INFO","Random: $var(rand)"); $td = "192.168.1.10"; $rd = "192.168.1.10"; t_relay(); } } Where: 192.168.1.1 is Kamailio IP 192.168.1.10 is SBC IP The issue is that I'm not sure to handle the other SIP packets like 183,CANCEL, BYE etc that can be received from both SBC and session Manager? What to add to my configuration to handle it properly? Regards,

1 year, 1 month

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 October 2023