sr-users May 2023

sr-users@lists.kamailio.org

40 participants
46 discussions

RFC: selective backports to latest stable as a dedicated git branch

by Daniel-Constantin Mierla

Hello, during past on-site/online devel meetings as well as on mailing lists or tracker, there were various discussions around the idea or requests to make new features available quicker to stable branches. Of course, one can do local git cherry-picking, but I thought to bring this in discussion and see if makes sense to get something more coordinated between developers and community. Therefore I am cross-posting to sr-dev and sr-users to see if there is interest for it from both communities. Somehow inspired from Debian, my first idea would be to create a "x.y-backports" branch, where "x.y" is the branch for the stable release series. For example, with 5.6 release series built from branch "5.6", there could be "5.6-backports" branch which is kept in sync in "5.6" but also can get "selected" new features from devel (master branch) backported. The "selected" new features should be mostly a matter of the people willing to put effort in backporting, but I would consider a list recommendations not to end up with devel and backports branches being more or less the same. For example, in the "no-backporting" list: - no backporting of completely new modules - no backporting of significant changes to the config file language and native scripting interpreter In the "ok-to-backport": - updates to enable use with newer versions of external libraries - changes to make some functions/modules to cope better with the core infrastructure or end points Commits to the backports branch can be proposed via pull requests. The backports branch should be done only for latest stable version, picking from the development version. Right now it would be 5.6, but we can wait till 5.7 is released and then have it for it. No packaging and no official releases should be made from backports branch, only a git branch to be maintained as a community effort. Of course, if someone wants to put more resources into it, we can discuss about. Anyhow, the first questions would be if such branch sounds good to have and if there are people that think they can also contribute to maintain it. 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

4 months, 3 weeks

Clarification of 'return false' behaviour

by Patrick Wakano

Hi list, Hope you are all well! I'm using Kamailio version 5.6.4 (installed from the repo rpm.kamailio.org/centos/7) and noticed that every route that uses "return false" is exiting the script, instead of returning.... This was not the case on version 5.4.6 as the same script is running fine..... From this page https://www.kamailio.org/wikidocs/tutorials/faq/main/#how-is-the-function-r…, I would think that when a route returns false, it would return -1 and not stop execution, since negative is equal to false, but it is actually stopping (same as return 0)... So, as an example, this test code doesn't work as expected. In case the source is a public IP, the script doesn't print the "SRC public" it just exits and then of course every other logic meant to be done is not executed.... route[is_src_private] { if (is_ip_rfc1918("$si")) { return true; } return false; #return is_ip_rfc1918("$si"); *# this doesn't work too in case the $si is a public IP* } request_route { ... if (route(is_src_private)) { xlog("L_NOTICE", "SRC private\n"); } else { xlog("L_NOTICE", "SRC public\n"); } ... } If is_src_private is changed to return -1 instead of false, then it all works fine. Also, I noticed that the following code will print "TEST: 0" in case the $si is public and then stop execution. So looks like false is really being converted to 0, but I guess that's unexpected... anyway apologies if I'm missing something obvious.... route[is_src_private] { $var(t) = false; if (is_ip_rfc1918("$si")) { $var(t) = true; } xlog("L_ERR", "TEST: $var(t)\n"); return $var(t); } I could not find a recent ticket or email related to this situation and I've already spent hours trying to understand what is the logic/problem here, so would anyone have been across a similar case that could provide some insight and clarify what is the expected behaviour of the *false* usage (and boolean in general if possible)? Thank you, Kind regards, Patrick Wakano

4 months, 3 weeks

rtpengine module: sdp offer in message reply, ip protocol version not passed to rtpengine?

by Benoit Panizzon

Hi Team I think, I might have found something that was overseen in the rtpengine module. A (ipv6) <=> rtpengine <=> B (ipv4) Invite+SDP from B to A It looks like this works as expected. A SDP c= line is created containing an ipv6 address. Invite, no SDP from A to B Reply with SDP offer from B to A The information about A being reachable via ipv6 and therefore an ipv6 c= line being required, could be taken from the via header of the reply. But am I right to fear, that the rtpengine module does not do this at the moment? 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 ______________________________________________________

4 months, 3 weeks

Number if typical database connections

by Steve Wilkins

Hello, I moved the Kamailio database to RDS from a local instance and noticed that there were a large number of connections from the Kamailio user. What is the normal number of connection that can be expected? Thank you,

4 months, 3 weeks

Rebooting kamailio.org server

by Daniel-Constantin Mierla

Hello, in about 1 hour the kamailio.org server will be rebooted for some system upgrades, it should be quickly back running, but if anyone accesses the web/wiki or mailing lists archives exactly during that time, they might not respond -- just wait for a minute and try again. 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

4 months, 3 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

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

sr-users May 2023