sr-users November 2023

sr-users@lists.kamailio.org

47 participants
53 discussions

3xx is not relayed to the caller if there are 2 or more branches in the transaction

by Михаил Горюцкий

Hello, I encountered such a problem: An INVITE request comes to Kamailio. Kamailio finds a location and forwards this INVITE to a device. The device receives a push notification and registers on a new IP: port. The tsilo module creates a new branch. And this branch sends the INVITE. The device responds with 100 -> 180 -> 302. 100 and 180 are forwarded to the calling subscriber, but anything greater than 300, such as 302, is not forwarded. DEBUG: tm [t_reply.c:1363]: t_should_relay_response(): ->>>>>>>>> T_code=180, new_code=302 DEBUG: tm [t_reply.c:1448]: t_should_relay_response(): store - other branches still active DEBUG: tm [t_reply.c:1925]: relay_reply(): reply status=3 branch=1, save=1, relay=-1 icode=0 msg status=302 Kamailio saves this code and does not pass it to the caller. Is there a way to immediately pass this 302? It seems like something can be done in t_on_branch_failure, which is invoked, but I can't figure out what needs to be done there. Is there a parameter that can solve my problem? A similar question has been asked before, but the link in Daniel's response leads to a non-existent ID: https://lists.kamailio.org/pipermail/sr-users/2009-March/022447.html

6 months

defexps not working as expected

by Richard Chan

In the config file: #!define KEYVALUE "key=s:value" modparam("pv", "varset", KEYVALUE) works. But if I try to use defexp or defexps the ID KEYVALUE is not set as expected and the parser complains. ## this doesn't parse #!defexp KEYVALUE2 "key=s:value" #!defexps KEYVALUE3 "key=s:value" # both these lead to syntax error modparam("pv", "varset", KEYVALUE2) modparam("pv", "varset", KEYVALUE3) Any ideas why defexp doesn't behave the same way here? Shih-Ping

6 months

SIP Proxy : BYE next hop

by Ali Taher

Hello all, I'm using Kamailio as SIP proxy between session manager and SBC. I came across an issue in BYE request where the SBC sent in the header list of Routes where first route is Kamailio IP, and the second is SM IP, in addition to other routes (last route is the caller party) What Kamailio did is to route the BYE to the address set in the Request-URI, which is the caller party. What should be done instead is that Kamailio should remove the Route header including its own IP, and route the BYE to the next hop which is in this case the SM IP. How to accomplish that? Following is the Route header in the BYE request coming from SBC: [truncated]Route: <sip:KAMAILIO_IP;lr;ftag=xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,<sip:SM1@SM_IP;transport=udp;lr;av-asset-uid=xxxxxxxxxx>,<sip:127.0.0.2:15060;transport=udp;ibmsid=local.xxxxxxxxxxxx_xxxxxxxxx_xxxxxxxxx;lr;ibmdrr>,sips:127.0.0.2:15061;ibmsid=local.xxxxxxxxxx_xxxxxxxxxx_xxxxxxxx;lr;ibmdrr, sip:SM1@SM_IP;transport=tls;lr;av-asset-uid=xxxxxx, sip:CALLER_PARTY_IP:5061;transport=tls;lr Regards,

6 months, 1 week

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 November 2023