sr-users March 2023

sr-users@lists.kamailio.org

47 participants
63 discussions

by Lars Jansson

Hi, I am building a configuration script where for some traffic flows parallel forking will be needed, and in this case I need to go beyond the default max limit of the max amount of branches. Apart from this specific case the traffic load that kamailio will need to handle is very low, let's say just one second here and there with up to 5 concurrent calls at most. This limit is as far as I understand set here: usr/local/src/kamailio-5.6/kamailio/src/core/config.h And the default limit is: #define MAX_BRANCHES_LIMIT 32 /*!< limit of maximum number of branches per transaction */ Here are the questions I have related to this: 1) If I increase the value of this constant in config.h, how high is it reasonable to set this value and still have a stable system? 2) If I increase MAX_BRANCHES_LIMIT beyond 32, are there also other parameters that needs to be changed for the system to be able to cope, and if so whichparameters? Regards, Lars

5 days, 4 hours

Is Min-SE check broken?

by harneet singh

Hi All, I am facing an issue in understanding how the min_se should be working in kamailio. As per the SST documentation, it seems like if the min_se is configured as 500, then any value of Session-Expires OR MIN-SE if lower than 500, can be responded to by a 422. However, I strangely see the reverse happening. To investigate further, I looked in to the ki_sst_check_min() code in the master, and these seems like a potential issue. Ref Code: Inside ki_sst_check_min(), there is an if condition like below: if (sst_min_se < MIN(minse, se.interval)) { However, shouldn't it be the other way around? ie if (sst_min_se > MIN(minse, se.interval)) { because we need to send 422 if the received value(in INVITE etc) is smaller than the sst configure min_se value? I also found a different documentation, at https://git.sgu.ru/oldssu/ex-opensips/blob/cb9df8d59dbb254a9d862569fd5d11f6… where the check is as below? if (sst_min_se > MIN(minse, se.interval)) { Can someone confirm if this is broken, or my understanding is incorrect? Regards, Harneet -- "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth" - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

3 months, 3 weeks

Performing async_http calls on stateless Loadbalancers

by Julius Flohr

Hi List, we are running several stateless SIP Loadbalancers using Kamaillio 5.1 and 5.6. Now we would like to perform an async_http request if an INVITE matches certain criteria. The request itself is performed very similar to how it's described here [1] This uses the transaction module in order to assure that the response can be mapped to the original request. However, this also means that the processing of the entire request becomes stateful which we would like to avoid. We tried to use t_release() in the callback route (in [1] this route is called "RELAY_API_RESPONSE"). However, documentation says that this is only allowed in the REQUEST_ROUTE. Is there an easy way to circumnavigate this issue? Cheers [1]: https://wazo-platform.org/blog/kamailio-routing-with-rtjson-and-http-async-… -- Julius Flohr - Voice Engineer - flohr(a)sipgate.de Telefon: +49 (0)211-63 55 55-0 Mobil: +49 (0)1579-000-0205 Telefax: +49 (0)211-63 55 55-22 sipgate GmbH - Gladbacher Str. 74 - 40219 Düsseldorf HRB Düsseldorf 39841 - Geschäftsführer: Thilo Salmon, Tim Mois Steuernummer: 106/5724/7147, Umsatzsteuer-ID: DE219349391 www.sipgate.de - www.sipgate.co.uk

4 months, 2 weeks

Re: [SR-Users] TOPOS (5.1.[23]) breaks PRACK

by Daniel Tryba

On Mon, May 07, 2018 at 04:44:14PM +0200, Daniel Tryba wrote: > Sure. Attached. Problem appears to be that the topos query can't find > callid-totag (from the response). > > I'll try the same scenario with the mysql backend to see if it behaves > different. Config works fine with mysql as topos backend. So the bug is restricted to topos-redis.

4 months, 3 weeks

Roadmap to next major release series v5.7.x

by Daniel-Constantin Mierla

Hello, it is time to make the roadmap to the next major release series v5.7.x. In my opinion, I would try to freeze the development during the first part of April 2023, tentatively proposing April 14 as freezing date, being like 4 weeks from now. Then testing phase and first release (v5.7.0) sometime during May 2023. Alternative timelines can be proposed, of course. If anyone wants to add new features/modules, they have to be published till freezing date, either pushed in the git repository or proposed as pull request. Cheers, Daniel -- Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- www.asipto.com www.twitter.com/miconda -- www.linkedin.com/in/miconda Kamailio World Conference - June 5-7, 2023 - www.kamailioworld.com Kamailio Advanced Training - Online - March 27-30, 2023 - www.asipto.com

5 months

Rtpengine: no audio after kernelization.

by Michel Pelletier

Hello, I am proxying all RTP through RTPEngine. Everything works fine until about 5 seconds into the call, when rtpengine enters kernelization, after which all RTP forwarding ceases. I've checked the required iptables entries, and all looks good. Here is a description of my environment: # cat os-release PRETTY_NAME="Debian GNU/Linux 11 (bullseye)" NAME="Debian GNU/Linux" VERSION_ID="11" VERSION="11 (bullseye)" VERSION_CODENAME=bullseye ID=debian HOME_URL="https://www.debian.org/" SUPPORT_URL="https://www.debian.org/support" BUG_REPORT_URL="https://bugs.debian.org/" # kamailio -v version: kamailio 5.6.2 (x86_64/linux) 54a9c1 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: 54a9c1 compiled on 16:02:49 Dec 1 2022 with gcc 10.2.1 # rtpengine -v Version: 11.1.1.3-1~bpo11+1 Michel Pelletier

5 months, 1 week

Presence module and privacy

by Ihor Olkhovskyi

Hello! Is there any possibility to control more-or-less privacy related parameters of pua_dialoginfo module (like include_localremote) per subscription? Main idea is I want to show some users full info on the call other user is making, for a different user - just show fact of the call without any details. For now I'm only seeing some manual manipulation over XML based on user who is receiving NOTIFY, but maybe I'm trying to invent a weel here. -- Best regards, Ihor (Igor)

5 months, 2 weeks

Handling stateless replies with kemi

by Ovidiu Sas

Hello all, How can we handle stateless replies with kemi? tm has the following param: modparam("tm", "on_sl_reply", "stateless_replies") What's the proper way to map the "stateless_reply" onreply_route to a kemi function. I'm playing with the app_jsdt module. Thanks, Ovidiu

5 months, 3 weeks

How to get top-most outbound via branch attribute from branched call?

by Benoît Panizzon

Hi all For rtpengine to correctly distinguish branched calls, the top-most via branch= parameter should be passed to it. I have attempted to use $via0 but that does not yet exist in Kamailio 5.4 So I did try to read $hdr(Via) which I guess returns an array and then access: but this returns the inbound via, not the one generated on the branched call. How can this be accomplished with kamailio 5.4? -- Mit freundlichen Grüssen -Benoît Panizzon- @ HomeOffice und normal erreichbar -- 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 ______________________________________________________

5 months, 3 weeks

CANCEL timeout in branch route does not trigger any failure routes

by Richard Chan

Hi Kamailio users How can I get a failure route to trigger in timeout-to-CANCEL in a parallel forking scenario? Parallel forking test scenario 1. one(the main - 0) branch picks up the call 2. 2nd branch sends CANCEL (expecting 487 etc) - but the callee does not send any replies Result: No failure route handlers are called on timeout of this CANCEL - that is kamailio attempts the CANCEL 4 times but neither tm.t_on_failure_route, tm.t_on_branch_failure handlers are called. Any suggestions on how to resolve this? Regards Shih-Ping

5 months, 3 weeks

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

sr-users March 2023