sr-users

sr-users@lists.kamailio.org

4 participants
37456 discussions

Kamailio - asterisk - ACK
by Péter Dr. Barabás 03 May '23

03 May '23

Hi all, we are developing a softphone mobile application which registers to asterisk through kamailio. Kamailo proxies the request to asterisk and replies from asterisk to the clients. Registration works fine with asterisk authentication. The problem appears in the following flow: 1. Mobile client A calls client B. 2. Asterisk gets INVITE through kamailo, sends back 401, and get INVITE with credentials. 3. Asterisk sends invite to client B towards kamailio. 4. Kamailio forwards INVITE if client is registered or sends a push notification to client B. When client B registers, kamailio continue the suspended transaction and forwards INVITE. 5. Client B gets INVITE, sends a SIP OK. 6. Asterisk gets SIP OK through kamailio and sends an ACK to client B, which is OK. 7. Asterisk sends the SIP OK to client A through kamailio. 8. Kamailio forwards SIP OK to client A but the contact address contains the asterisk IP instead kamailio. 9. Clilent A try to send ACK but it does not arrive to asterisk, and the call will be hungup after 30 secs. So the question is what is missing, what is the correct solution? I try to use the provided configuration given in following link: https://kb.asipto.com/asterisk:realtime:kamailio-4.0.x-asterisk-11.3.0-astdb The difference is that kamailio has no access to asterisk database. Thanks for your help. With kind regards, Peter

3 3

RFC: selective backports to latest stable as a dedicated git branch
by Daniel-Constantin Mierla 03 May '23

03 May '23

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

3 2

Clarification of 'return false' behaviour
by Patrick Wakano 03 May '23

03 May '23

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

3 6

rtpengine module: sdp offer in message reply, ip protocol version not passed to rtpengine?
by Benoit Panizzon 02 May '23

02 May '23

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 ______________________________________________________

2 2

Number if typical database connections
by Steve Wilkins 02 May '23

02 May '23

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,

2 1

Rebooting kamailio.org server
by Daniel-Constantin Mierla 02 May '23

02 May '23

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

1 0

Re: [SR-Users] TOPOS (5.1.[23]) breaks PRACK
by Daniel Tryba 02 May '23

02 May '23

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.

5 19

Loading the LCR Module Tables at startup/reload
by harneet singh 30 Apr '23

30 Apr '23

Hi All, Can someone point to a sample as to how we can *load the LCR Module tables* namely the following at startup from a csv file or any other mechanism. * lcr_gw_table * lcr_rule_table * lcr_rule_target_table The idea is to not need to manually feed in the entries into the table but instead add these in the beginning through either a *wrapper script *OR *through the kamailio cfg file* if possible. Any pointers are much appreciated. Thanks & Regards, Harneet Singh -- "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth" - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

2 3

Route Header based routing for initial INVITE
by harneet singh 28 Apr '23

28 Apr '23

Hi Experts, I believe the loose_route() in kamailio can be used for initial Out of the dialog INVITE processing as well. Is that the correct understanding? If so, the request will be forwarded ahead to the destination corresponding to the Route Header remaining (if any) after Kamailio has stripped off it's own Address(es) from the Route Header(s). Is that correct? Regards, Harneet Singh -- "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth" - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

3 3

Strange RTCP issue
by Kiss Zoltán 27 Apr '23

27 Apr '23

Hello, We have a transparent proxy in front of Asterisk boxes. The media is handled by rtpengine, and the "manage" work is done by Kamailio in the route[NATMANAGE] section like this: if(nat_uac_test("8")) { # Packet from backend server if(ds_is_from_list()){ if (rtpengine_manage("replace-origin replace-session-connection direction=internal direction=pub")) { xdbg("NATMANAGE --- Success rtpengine_manage() RTP from INTERNAL to EXTERNAL $ru"); } } else { if (rtpengine_manage("replace-origin replace-session-connection direction=pub direction=internal")) { xdbg("NATMANAGE --- Success rtpengine_manage() RTP from EXTERNAL to INTERNAL $ru"); } } } else { # Packet from backend server if(ds_is_from_list()){ if (rtpengine_manage("replace-origin replace-session-connection trust-address direction=internal direction=pub")) { xdbg("NATMANAGE --- Success rtpengine_manage() RTP from INTERNAL to EXTERNAL $ru"); } } else { if (rtpengine_manage("replace-origin replace-session-connection trust-address direction=pub direction=internal")) { xdbg("NATMANAGE --- Success rtpengine_manage() RTP from EXTERNAL to INTERNAL $ru"); } } } Everything is working fine, but with some clients (like Grandstream phone) the RTCP session wants to go tot he private address of the phone. Here is the log of one of these strange calls: Apr 27 16:54:38 rtp1 rtpengine[2273]: INFO: [312ed76c31f21b71452e91e5184ad25b@172.16.2.210:5060]: [core] --------- Port 178.238.213.14:11088 <> 81.183.216.3:5068 , SSRC 77c19488, 625 p, 107500 b, 0 e, 29 ts Apr 27 16:54:38 rtp1 rtpengine[2273]: INFO: [312ed76c31f21b71452e91e5184ad25b@172.16.2.210:5060]: [core] --------- Port 178.238.213.14:11089 <> 10.0.5.192:5069 (RTCP), SSRC 0, 0 p, 0 b, 0 e, 43 ts As you can see the RTP itself is okay, but the RTCP will somehow go to the private address. If we tracing the sdp messages in sngrep, then we can see that Kamailio transforming IP addresses for the backend servers to the public (and the private address of the rtpengine) addresses. We are missing something? Thank you! With kind regards, Zoltan

2 1

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