sr-users

sr-users@lists.kamailio.org

48 participants
37555 discussions

New: max branches configurable via parameter
by Daniel-Constantin Mierla 17 Oct '14

17 Oct '14

Hello, being brought in discussions many times, including in the recent past days, I replaced the static define of max branches limit with a core parameter. It impacts the destination set stored in core and the uac fields stored in transaction. It can be set now with global parameter: max_branches The old limit was 12, now it can be set in the range of 1 to 31. Few aspects that I would like to discuss to get this refactored to fit the best of common scenarios: 1) the 31 upper limit comes from tm cancelled branches bitmask, which now is stored in an integer. Should be easy to get it to 63 (planned after some testing that proves the concept used now is ok). Would it be a need for even more? 2) would it make sense to specify the max number of branches per transaction, in config, before creating the transaction? The upper limit will be the max_branches value from the core. 3) thinking of common cases of what can be forked a lot, I thought that we can a simplification of 2) by specifying two limits: one for initial requests which are very likely to have many branches (think of initial INVITE via LCR or location) and one for requests within dialog which are likely to have one or very few branches (e.g., replicating BYE to a peer server). Opinions? The main benefit for 2) and 3) would be less memory usage. Testing and feedback of the new max_branches parameter is very appreciated. Cheers, Daniel -- Daniel-Constantin Mierla http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda

5 4

Kamailio v4.2.0 RPMs and updates to rpm.kamailio.org
by Daniel-Constantin Mierla 17 Oct '14

17 Oct '14

Hello, the RPMs for Kamailio v4.2.0 were generated for Centos (5, 6, 7), Fedora (18, 19, 20), OpenSuse (12.3, 13.1, 13.2) and RedHat (5, 6, 7). Packages are made with OpenSuse build service, but as different build project -- see the details at: - http://www.kamailio.org/wiki/packages/rpms The change was made to have a build project for each release series from now on, making easier to manage and mirror. Given this, the mirror at rpm.kamailio.org has been updated as well. If you used it for 4.1.x or older releases, you have to upgrade the repo path, see: - http://rpm.kamailio.org And again a call for people using RPMs: join the efforts in packaging and managing there repos, we have the infrastructure now, but we are short in time/human resources. If you want to keep the packages up to date, come on board and help a bit. Cheers, Daniel -- Daniel-Constantin Mierla http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda

1 0

Mozilla Firefox + SIP Phone voice not established
by Amit Patkar 17 Oct '14

17 Oct '14

Hi I have configured latest Kamailio 4.2.0 + Rtpengine 3.3.0.0+0~mr3.6.0.0 There are 2 SIP clients. Once client is registered as WebRTC client from Mozilla Firefox browser 29.0.1 and second SIP client is desktop SIP phone - PortGo Softphone (portsip.com) When I am trying to call softphone from Firefox, call is getting established, where as voice is not established. RTP is not flowing between Browser and Softphone. Same is working with Google Chrome. Following command is used for negotiation rtpengine_manage("replace-origin replace-session-connection ICE=force"); Log is as follows Oct 16 18:39:14 kamailio rtpengine[28613]: Got valid command from 127.0.0.1:60471: offer - { "sdp": "v=0#015#012o=Mozilla-SIPUA-29.0.1 3618 1 IN IP4 0.0.0.0#015#012s=Doubango Telecom - firefox#015#012t=0 0#015#012a=ice-ufrag:6e5ff262#015#012a=ice-pwd:21a7dd42eb50ab711d7466a39f4994fe#015#012a=fingerprint:sha-256 F2:B7:D6:64:90:66:D7:33:B1:04:F7:EC:8D:78:A1:9F:1D:E1:59:92:31:64:98:D3:6D:A7:DF:60:C9:DA:21:AE#015#012m=audio 3779 UDP/TLS/RTP/SAVPF 109 0 8 101#015#012c=IN IP4 49.248.118.98#015#012a=rtpmap:109 opus/48000/2#015#012a=ptime:20#015#012a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000#015#012a=rtpmap:8 PCMA/8000#015#012a=rtpmap:101 telep ... Oct 16 18:39:14 kamailio rtpengine[28613]: ... hone-event/8000#015#012a=fmtp:101 0-15#015#012a=sendrecv#015#012a=setup:actpass#015#012a=candidate:0 1 UDP 2128609535 192.168.2.18 3779 typ host#015#012a=candidate:1 1 UDP 1692467199 49.248.118.98 3779 typ srflx raddr 192.168.2.18 rport 3779#015#012a=candidate:0 2 UDP 2128609534 192.168.2.18 3780 typ host#015#012a=candidate:1 2 UDP 1692467198 49.248.118.98 3780 typ srflx raddr 192.168.2.18 rport 3780#015#012a=rtcp-mux#015#012", "ICE": "force", "replace": [ "origin", "session-connection" ], "call-id": "1b211056-eb41-7edf-59b5-fa2f51161f32", "receive ... Oct 16 18:39:14 kamailio rtpengine[28613]: ... d-from": [ "IP4", "192.168.2.18" ], "from-tag": "R3okhRsDImBAiNMCZ04e", "command": "offer" } Oct 16 18:39:14 kamailio rtpengine[28613]: [1b211056-eb41-7edf-59b5-fa2f51161f32] Creating new call Oct 16 18:39:14 kamailio rtpengine[28613]: [1b211056-eb41-7edf-59b5-fa2f51161f32] Returning to SIP proxy: d3:sdp735:v=0#015#012o=Mozilla-SIPUA-29.0.1 3618 1 IN IP4 0.0.0.0#015#012s=Doubango Telecom - firefox#015#012t=0 0#015#012a=ice-lite#015#012m=audio 30428 UDP/TLS/RTP/SAVPF 109 0 8 101#015#012c=IN IP4 192.168.7.78#015#012a=rtpmap:109 opus/48000/2#015#012a=ptime:20#015#012a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000#015#012a=rtpmap:8 PCMA/8000#015#012a=rtpmap:101 telephone-event/8000#015#012a=fmtp:101 0-15#015#012a=sendrecv#015#012a=rtcp:30429#015#012a=rtcp-mux#015#012a=crypto:1 AES_CM_128_HMAC_SHA1_80 inline:X1DlmZvOXeVYgcPNBeiDT15PjuDw01QRjS6K3q2l#015#012a=setup:actpass#015#012a=fingerprint:sha-1 1A:A ... Oct 16 18:39:14 kamailio rtpengine[28613]: [1b211056-eb41-7edf-59b5-fa2f51161f32] ... D:10:CA:48:BC:06:5F:BA:77:A5:72:5B:A8:4F:6B:05:68:03:C2#015#012a=ice-ufrag:pfDmNOv7#015#012a=ice-pwd:y7T3NQJ5BBwHUqtzSjKjk87JmK47#015#012a=candidate:WudoNuJD1FjBzlYN 1 UDP 2130706431 192.168.7.78 30428 typ host#015#012a=candidate:WudoNuJD1FjBzlYN 2 UDP 2130706430 192.168.7.78 30429 typ host#015#0126:result2:oke Oct 16 18:39:15 kamailio rtpengine[28613]: Got valid command from 127.0.0.1:60147: answer - { "sdp": "v=0#015#012o=- 29112514 29112514 IN IP4 192.168.2.18#015#012s=http://www.portsip.com#015#012c=IN IP4 192.168.2.18#015#012t=0 0#015#012m=audio 21666 RTP/SAVP 0 101#015#012a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000#015#012a=rtpmap:101 telephone-event/8000#015#012a=fmtp:101 0-15#015#012a=crypto:1 AES_CM_128_HMAC_SHA1_80 inline:YBXJIjofPfzbpUUXyR5gPrQi7SXOu1uwCXGvmKfy#015#012a=sendrecv#015#012", "ICE": "force", "replace": [ "origin", "session-connection" ], "call-id": "1b211056-eb41-7edf-59b5-fa2f51161f32", "received-from": [ " ... Oct 16 18:39:15 kamailio rtpengine[28613]: ... IP4", "192.168.2.18" ], "from-tag": "R3okhRsDImBAiNMCZ04e", "to-tag": "2c76015a", "command": "answer" } Oct 16 18:39:15 kamailio rtpengine[28613]: [1b211056-eb41-7edf-59b5-fa2f51161f32] Returning to SIP proxy: d3:sdp555:v=0#015#012o=- 29112514 29112514 IN IP4 192.168.7.78#015#012s=http://www.portsip.com#015#012c=IN IP4 192.168.7.78#015#012t=0 0#015#012a=ice-lite#015#012m=audio 30438 RTP/SAVP 0 101#015#012a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000#015#012a=rtpmap:101 telephone-event/8000#015#012a=fmtp:101 0-15#015#012a=sendrecv#015#012a=rtcp:30439#015#012a=setup:active#015#012a=fingerprint:sha-1 1A:AD:10:CA:48:BC:06:5F:BA:77:A5:72:5B:A8:4F:6B:05:68:03:C2#015#012a=ice-ufrag:xzf5G88u#015#012a=ice-pwd:WPxvr1djpERiXBBgHJX3r1bYBo3f#015#012a=candidate:WudoNuJD1FjBzlYN 1 UDP 2130706431 192.168.7.78 30 ... Oct 16 18:39:15 kamailio rtpengine[28613]: [1b211056-eb41-7edf-59b5-fa2f51161f32] ... 438 typ host#015#012a=candidate:WudoNuJD1FjBzlYN 2 UDP 2130706430 192.168.7.78 30439 typ host#015#0126:result2:oke Oct 16 18:39:15 kamailio /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[28806]: NOTICE: acc [acc.c:318]: acc_log_request(): ACC: transaction answered: timestamp=1413464955;method=INVITE;from_tag=R3okhRsDImBAiNMCZ04e;to_tag=2c76015a;call_id=1b211056-eb41-7edf-59b5-fa2f51161f32;code=200;reason=OK;src_user=5011;src_domain=192.168.7.78;src_ip=192.168.2.18;dst_ouser=9002;dst_user=9002;dst_domain=192.168.2.18 Oct 16 18:39:15 kamailio rtpengine[28613]: [1b211056-eb41-7edf-59b5-fa2f51161f32 port 30429] SRTCP output wanted, but no crypto suite was negotiated Oct 16 18:39:16 kamailio rtpengine[28613]: [1b211056-eb41-7edf-59b5-fa2f51161f32 port 30428] SRTP output wanted, but no crypto suite was negotiated Oct 16 18:39:19 kamailio rtpengine[28613]: [1b211056-eb41-7edf-59b5-fa2f51161f32 port 30428] Confirmed peer address as 192.168.2.18:21666 Oct 16 18:39:20 kamailio rtpengine[28613]: [1b211056-eb41-7edf-59b5-fa2f51161f32 port 30429] Confirmed peer address as 192.168.2.18:21667 Oct 16 18:39:20 kamailio rtpengine[28613]: Got valid command from 127.0.0.1:36626: delete - { "ICE": "force", "call-id": "1b211056-eb41-7edf-59b5-fa2f51161f32", "received-from": [ "IP4", "192.168.2.18" ], "from-tag": "2c76015a", "command": "delete" } Oct 16 18:39:20 kamailio rtpengine[28613]: [1b211056-eb41-7edf-59b5-fa2f51161f32] Scheduling deletion of call branch '2c76015a' in 30 seconds Oct 16 18:39:20 kamailio rtpengine[28613]: [1b211056-eb41-7edf-59b5-fa2f51161f32] Returning to SIP proxy: d7:createdi1413464954e11:last signali1413464955e4:tagsd8:2c76015ad3:tag8:2c76015a7:createdi1413464954e16:in dialogue with20:R3okhRsDImBAiNMCZ04e6:mediasld5:indexi1e4:type5:audio8:protocol8:RTP/SAVP7:streamsld10:local porti30428e8:endpointd6:family4:IPv47:address12:192.168.2.184:porti21666ee19:advertised endpointd6:family4:IPv47:address12:192.168.2.184:porti21666ee12:crypto suite23:AES_CM_128_HMAC_SHA1_8011:last packeti1413464960e5:flagsl3:RTP6:filled9:confirmede5:statsd7: ... Oct 16 18:39:20 kamailio rtpengine[28613]: [1b211056-eb41-7edf-59b5-fa2f51161f32] ... packetsi228e5:bytesi39216e6:errorsi0eeed10:local porti30429e8:endpointd6:family4:IPv47:address12:192.168.2.184:porti21667ee19:advertised endpointd6:family4:IPv47:address12:192.168.2.184:porti21667ee12:crypto suite23:AES_CM_128_HMAC_SHA1_8011:last packeti1413464960e5:flagsl4:RTCP6:filled9:confirmede5:statsd7:packetsi2e5:bytesi56e6:errorsi0eeee5:flagsl11:initialized4:SDESeeee20:R3okhRsDImBAiNMCZ04ed3:tag20:R3okhRsDImBAiNMCZ04e7:createdi1413464954e16:in dialogue with8:2c76015a6:mediasld5:indexi1e4: ... Oct 16 18:39:20 kamailio rtpengine[28613]: [1b211056-eb41-7edf-59b5-fa2f51161f32] ... type5:audio8:protocol8:RTP/SAVP7:streamsld10:local porti30438e8:endpointd6:family4:IPv47:address12:192.168.2.184:porti3779ee19:advertised endpointd6:family4:IPv47:address12:192.168.2.184:porti3779ee11:last packeti1413464954e5:flagsl3:RTP6:fillede5:statsd7:packetsi0e5:bytesi0e6:errorsi0eeed10:local porti30439e8:endpointd6:family4:IPv67:address2:::4:porti0ee19:advertised endpointd6:family4:IPv67:address2:::4:porti0ee11:last packeti1413464954e5:flagsl4:RTCP6:fillede5:statsd7:packetsi0e5:bytesi0e6:e ... Oct 16 18:39:20 kamailio rtpengine[28613]: [1b211056-eb41-7edf-59b5-fa2f51161f32] ... rrorsi0eeee5:flagsl11:initialized9:DTLS-SRTP3:ICEeeeee6:totalsd3:RTPd7:packetsi228e5:bytesi39216e6:errorsi0ee4:RTCPd7:packetsi2e5:bytesi56e6:errorsi0eee6:result2:oke Oct 16 18:39:20 kamailio /usr/local/sbin/kamailio[28815]: NOTICE: acc [acc.c:318]: acc_log_request(): ACC: transaction answered: timestamp=1413464960;method=BYE;from_tag=2c76015a;to_tag=R3okhRsDImBAiNMCZ04e;call_id=1b211056-eb41-7edf-59b5-fa2f51161f32;code=200;reason=OK;src_user=9002;src_domain=192.168.7.78;src_ip=192.168.2.18;dst_ouser=5011;dst_user=5011;dst_domain=df7jal23ls0d.invalid Another issue is for reverse scenario. Softphone calling WebRTC client. This option does not work with Mozilla & Chrome. Please help. Am I missing something? Do I need to modify configuration to make this work? -- *Thanks & Regards,* Amit Patkar

1 0

Kamailio v4.2.0 Released - new major version is out
by Daniel-Constantin Mierla 16 Oct '14

16 Oct '14

Kamailio v4.2.0 is out – a new major release, bringing out a consistent set of new features and improvements. You can read detailed release notes at: * http://www.kamailio.org/w/kamailio-v4-2-0-release-notes/ Many thanks to all developers and community members that made possible this release. Enjoy Kamailio v4.2.0! Daniel -- Daniel-Constantin Mierla - http://www.asipto.com http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda

2 2

weight for rtpproxy_sock (string)
by george wu 16 Oct '14

16 Oct '14

How can I specify weight for socket? can I get an example? How to set weight for each socket below? thanks. http://kamailio.org/docs/modules/stable/modules/rtpproxy.html Sockets can be weighted by adding '=#' to a socket where # is an integer. A socket with a weight of 2 will be chosen twice as often as one with a weight of 1. # multiple sets of multiple rtproxies modparam("rtpproxy", "rtpproxy_sock", "1 == udp:localhost:12221 udp:localhost:12222") modparam("rtpproxy", "rtpproxy_sock", "2 == udp:localhost:12225")

1 0

Registrar module and local paths
by Ben Langfeld 16 Oct '14

16 Oct '14

Hello everyone. I'm having a problem with registrations and Path and hope that someone can help. I have a Kamailio instance which is both a WebSocket proxy and a registrar which has the following behaviour: * A REGISTER with a Path header already on it gets recorded in the location table. * I use add_path() on all incoming REGISTERs, and a REGISTER relayed to another registrar reaches that registrar with a Path header added appropriately. Unfortunately, save("location") ignores the path added by add_path(). I'd prefer to keep the proxy and registrar co-located for the short term. Does anyone know if/how I might be able to have the Path header properly stored in the case that it was added by add_path()? Regards, Ben Langfeld

5 8

Kamailio-4.1.6 IMS Setup - Registration Issue
by Kamal Palei 16 Oct '14

16 Oct '14

Dear All I have setup a Kamailio proxy for testing IMS call flows. I have configured as per help provided. On registration, I get 483 response from server. When I searched it in google and help, it was suggested to set the alias name properly. I set the alias name properly. Still I get 483 from Kamailio (used as IMS server) Can somebody help me with what are the possible reasons for this. Thanks kamal

2 3

textopsx issue when modifying same header several times
by Andrew Pogrebennyk 16 Oct '14

16 Oct '14

Hi, we are filtering some method names from the Allow header with kamailio 4.1: depending in the configuration: if (hf_value_exists("Allow", "INFO")) { xlog("L_INFO", "Remove INFO from Allow\n"); exclude_hf_value("Allow", "INFO"); } if (hf_value_exists("Allow", "REFER")) { xlog("L_INFO", "Remove REFER from Allow\n"); exclude_hf_value("Allow", "REFER"); } There is a problem in case multiple rewrites are done on the same header so the resulting message is going to be broken: Input: Allow: INVITE, BYE, REGISTER, ACK, OPTIONS, CANCEL, SUBSCRIBE, NOTIFY, PRACK, INFO, REFER OUTPUT: Allow: INVITE, BYE, REGISTER, ACK, OPTIONS, CANCEL, SUBSCRIBE, NOTIFY, PRACK, The trailing comma is not allowed. So we have to use msg_apply_changes(). But kamailio is quite restrictive on where you can call msg_apply_changes(): 1. it must be done before record_route()* and 2. it is not allowed in the branch route. As for me it's valid use case when you need to do some header manipulations only for some of the branches, isn't? *(1) is further aggravated by the fact that the record_route() for loose-routed requests is usually called quite early in the processing pipeline. Imagine kamailio.cfg would look like: request_route { # per request initial checks route(REQINIT); # NAT detection route(NATDETECT); # CANCEL processing if (is_method("CANCEL")) { if (t_check_trans()) { route(RELAY); } exit; } # ---> filter Allow route(FILTER_ALLOW_METHODS); # handle requests within SIP dialogs route(WITHINDLG); I don't like the idea of changing the message before loose-routing. Taking (1) and (2) into account, would it be possible to a) fix exclude_hf_value to allow to filter multiple values in a single pass and b) allow msg_apply_changes() in branch route without any ill effects on the record-route headers? Please share your ideas. Thanks, Andrew

1 0

XCAP Jitsi
by Abdul Gafar 16 Oct '14

16 Oct '14

We configure use XCAP in version: kamailio 4.1.6 (x86_64/linux) Error in SIP Client (Jitsi) Resource cannot be read http://192.x.x.x.x:5060/xcap-root/xca-caps/global/index For Null Please Help me , for solve it's solution //Gafar

2 1

Releasing v4.2.0
by Daniel-Constantin Mierla 16 Oct '14

16 Oct '14

Hello, short note to say that packaging of v4.2.0 will start after 14:00 (Berlin time) -- anyone willing to do changes to branch 4.2 should send a short notice on sr-dev and wait for confirmation to avoid conflicts. Cheers, Daniel -- Daniel-Constantin Mierla http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda

1 0

Jump to page:

2025

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