Hi Charles, The notification address is set to localhost only for the server node because I have a mutual architecture and don't know which nodes are up and with which IPs. There could be a possibility that there are no other kamailio nodes beside the dmq-server. I'm pretty sure this configuration was working some time ago, We've since then changed some configuration but no dmq configuration was changed as I'm aware of. The other thing that changes is the kamailio version. I will try to use a stable version and retry. I've tried a capture with tshark and on the local interface I've got: ``` 3 0.116690338 10.0.0.101 ? 127.0.0.1 SIP 557 Unknown request: KDMQ sip:notification_peer@127.0.0.1:5060 | (text/plain) 4 0.116771925 10.0.0.101 ? 127.0.0.1 SIP 557 Unknown request: KDMQ sip:notification_peer@127.0.0.1:5060 | (text/plain) 5 1.116940867 10.0.0.101 ? 127.0.0.1 SIP 557 Unknown request: KDMQ sip:notification_peer@127.0.0.1:5060 | (text/plain) 6 3.116729798 10.0.0.101 ? 127.0.0.1 SIP 557 Unknown request: KDMQ sip:notification_peer@127.0.0.1:5060 | (text/plain) 7 4.116611072 10.0.0.101 ? 127.0.0.1 SIP 557 Unknown request: KDMQ sip:notification_peer@127.0.0.1:5060 | (text/plain) 8 7.116677754 10.0.0.101 ? 127.0.0.1 SIP 557 Unknown request: KDMQ sip:notification_peer@127.0.0.1:5060 | (text/plain) 9 8.116711422 10.0.0.101 ? 127.0.0.1 SIP 557 Unknown request: KDMQ sip:notification_peer@127.0.0.1:5060 | (text/plain) ``` On the public interface there are packets arriving from the other two kamailio nodes: ``` 221 218.212276413 10.0.0.50 ? 172.22.5.102 SIP 561 Unknown request: KDMQ sip:notification_peer@10.0.0.102:5060 | (text/plain) 222 219.212053642 10.0.0.50 ? 172.22.5.102 SIP 561 Unknown request: KDMQ sip:notification_peer@10.0.0.102:5060 | (text/plain) 223 219.955864183 10.0.0.49 ? 172.22.5.102 SIP 562 Unknown request: KDMQ sip:notification_peer@10.0.0.102:5060 | (text/plain) 224 220.955964403 10.0.0.49 ? 172.22.5.102 SIP 562 Unknown request: KDMQ sip:notification_peer@10.0.0.102:5060 | (text/plain) ``` But in the logs of all three kamailio nodes I've got: ``` 9(64) ERROR: dmq [notification_peer.c:596]: notification_resp_callback_f(): deleting server sip:10.0.0.102:5060 because of failed request 9(64) ERROR: dmq [notification_peer.c:599]: notification_resp_callback_f(): not deleting notification_peer ``` Also no luck with the dmq.list_nodes. Kind regards and thank you for your time, I really appreciate it! -- Aleksandar Sosic mail: alex.sosic(a)evosip.cloudOn Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 6:27 PM Charles Chance <charles.chance(a)sipcentric.com> wrote: > > Hello, > > Is there anything preventing the messages from reaching Kamailio? If you have a pcap from one of the servers we may be able to see what’s happening. > > Also, you have the notification address set to localhost - this should instead point to one of the other nodes. > > Cheers, > > Charles

Hi everyone, so adding some xlogs We've managed to find out what's happening. The request route was using: ``` if(is_method("KDMQ")){ ``` but this if was never triggered(!?) We changed that to ``` if($rm == "KDMQ"){ ``` And now it's working. So why is that? In the documentation there's an example with is_method: https://kamailio.org/docs/modules/5.2.x/modules/dmq. html#dmq.f.dmq_handle_message and I can recall it working a month ago.

```25(42) ERROR: dmq [notification_peer.c:596]: notification_resp_callback_f(): deleting server sip:127.0.0.1:5060 because of failed request``` And that's because of the notification address on the kamailio node we use as DMQ server

This portion of DMQ documentation says that `Default value is "NULL".` for the notification_address: https://kamailio.org/docs/modules/5.2.x/modules/dmq. html#dmq.p.notification_address But with NULL or NOT specifying a value kamailio does not start. Am I misunderstanding the documentation? Could this be a feature request or it's a bug?

In a situation like our where kamailio nodes start and stop on demand without any prior defined topology or IP addresses defined it's hard to use DMQ module like that. That's why we introduced a DMQ server with a fixed IP address that it's handling only those packets (but it's a workaround). So my next question is: Do you guys have an idea on how could we handle DMQ on a very mutational infrastructure?

Example: I have 2 kamailio nodes in the begining (no fixed IPs - using DHCP), then when there's demand the infrastructure starts another 2 nodes, now I have 4 of them, then 3, one of the nodes randomly is stopped. And I want to use DMQ on these node to propagate information without using a DB. How could we do that?

Also another thing that we noticed is that the last node to be added is the one with no prior information regarding usrloc for example, it has only the changes happening from when it starts on. Could there be a method or modparam flag to force dmq sync of all the information upon the startup of another node (another possible feature request)?

On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 2:55 PM Charles Chance &lt;charles.chance(a)sipcentric.com&gt; wrote: is "DMQ server" as you have described it. I would recommend removing it completely and allowing your other nodes to discover/communicate between themselves. Ok Thanks for your inputs, seems a good idea and I think we're on a good path to solve our issues. do you see in your log when it fails to start? If you get rid of the "DMQ server' node as suggested above, though, this should be a none-issue. It does cause an issue: ``` 0(51) DEBUG: <core> [core/parser/parse_uri.c:1254]: parse_uri(): uri too short: <> (0) 0(51) ERROR: dmq [dmq.c:218]: mod_init(): notification address invalid 0(51) ERROR: <core> [core/sr_module.c:990]: init_mod(): Error while initializing module dmq (/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/kamailio/modules/dmq.so) ERROR: error while initializing modules ``` Maybe a feature request could be to just start kamailio even if it does not resolve a dns record for the dmq notification_address? This would solve us some problems in a highly mutable infrastructure like ours: ``` 0(88) ERROR: dmq [notification_peer.c:336]: add_server_and_notify(): error adding notification node 0(88) ERROR: dmq [dmq.c:304]: child_init(): cannot retrieve initial nodelist from sip:proxy-service:5061 0(88) ERROR: <core> [core/sr_module.c:944]: init_mod_child(): error while initializing module dmq (/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/kamailio/modules/dmq.so) (idx: 0 rank: 0 desc: [main]) 0(88) ERROR: <core> [main.c:1711]: main_loop(): error in init_child``` So just to recap: - Not specifying a notification_address DOES give issues - Having a DNS record for the notification_address that does not resolve makes kamailio to crash Any possibility to have this solved/enhanced? Thanks, -- Aleksandar Sosic mail: alex.sosic(a)evosip.cloud _______________________________________________ Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users

On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 12:35 PM Charles Chance &lt;charles.chance(a)sipcentric.com&gt; wrote: 5.2.0~dev6+0~20180616010152.1138+xenial Thank you! -- Aleksandar Sosic mail: alex.sosic(a)evosip.cloud

Here's another example: ``` router-0 3/3 Running 0 13m 172.22.5.94 master.alex.cloud.evox.it router-1 3/3 Running 0 13m 172.22.5.3 master.alex.cloud.evox.it router-2 3/3 Running 0 12m 172.22.5.4 master.alex.cloud.evox.it router-3 3/3 Running 0 12m 172.22.5.5 master.alex.cloud.evox.it ``` ``` root@router-0:/# kamcmd kamcmd 1.5 Copyright 2006 iptelorg GmbH This is free software with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY. For details type `warranty'. kamcmd> dmq.list_nodes { host: 172.22.5.3 port: 5062 resolved_ip: 172.22.5.3 status: active last_notification: 0 local: 0 } { host: 172.22.5.4 port: 5062 resolved_ip: 172.22.5.4 status: active last_notification: 0 local: 0 } { host: 172.22.5.94 port: 5062 resolved_ip: 172.22.5.94 status: active last_notification: 0 local: 1 } ``` ``` root@router-1:/# kamcmd kamcmd 1.5 Copyright 2006 iptelorg GmbH This is free software with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY. For details type `warranty'. kamcmd> dmq.list_nodes { host: 172.22.5.4 port: 5062 resolved_ip: 172.22.5.4 status: active last_notification: 0 local: 0 } { host: 172.22.5.94 port: 5062 resolved_ip: 172.22.5.94 status: active last_notification: 0 local: 0 } { host: 172.22.5.3 port: 5062 resolved_ip: 172.22.5.3 status: active last_notification: 0 local: 1 } ``` ``` root@router-2:/# kamcmd kamcmd 1.5 Copyright 2006 iptelorg GmbH This is free software with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY. For details type `warranty'. kamcmd> dmq.list_nodes { host: 172.22.5.94 port: 5062 resolved_ip: 172.22.5.94 status: active last_notification: 0 local: 0 } { host: 172.22.5.3 port: 5062 resolved_ip: 172.22.5.3 status: active last_notification: 0 local: 0 } { host: 172.22.5.4 port: 5062 resolved_ip: 172.22.5.4 status: active last_notification: 0 local: 1 } ``` ``` root@router-3:/# kamcmd kamcmd 1.5 Copyright 2006 iptelorg GmbH This is free software with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY. For details type `warranty'. kamcmd> dmq.list_nodes { host: 172.22.5.5 port: 5062 resolved_ip: 172.22.5.5 status: active last_notification: 0 local: 1 } ``` ``` nslookup dmq-router-service Server: 10.96.0.10 Address: 10.96.0.10#53 Non-authoritative answer: Name: dmq-router-service.default.svc.cluster.local Address: 172.22.5.5 Name: dmq-router-service.default.svc.cluster.local Address: 172.22.5.4 Name: dmq-router-service.default.svc.cluster.local Address: 172.22.5.3 Name: dmq-router-service.default.svc.cluster.local Address: 10.32.68.217 Name: dmq-router-service.default.svc.cluster.local Address: 172.22.5.94 ``` There is no difference in configuration between the router nodes. -- Aleksandar Sosic mail: alex.sosic(a)evosip.cloud On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 11:42 AM Aleksandar Sosic &lt;alex.sosic(a)evosip.cloud&gt; wrote: > > Hi, > > I'm now creating a dns record inside kubernetes with a headless service. > Unfortunately I must use a busybox that will start before the kamailio > nodes so the dns record will be created before kamailio starts because > otherwise it will crash as I told you before. IMHO it will be useful > to have a flag that allows me to choose if kamailio should start even > if the notification_address of the DMQ module does not resolve. That > would allow me to start nodes, populate the dns and then slowly add > nodes to the cluster without having a busybox to do that. > > As you can see from the logs kamailio notices the busybox IP > (10.32.68.202) which obviously not being a kamailio node gives me this > errors: > ``` > 17(109) ERROR: dispatcher [dispatch.c:1910]: ds_select_dst_limit(): no > destination sets > 33(125) ERROR: dmq [notification_peer.c:596]: > notification_resp_callback_f(): deleting server sip:10.32.68.202:5061 > because of failed request > 33(125) ERROR: dmq [notification_peer.c:596]: > notification_resp_callback_f(): deleting server > sip:43.100.109.113:5061 because of failed request > ``` > Being a workaround for creating the DNS record before starting > kamailio nodes that's ok. > But notice the IP 43.100.109.113 which is not an IP that the DNS > record for the notification_address resolves: > > ``` > $ nslookup dmq-proxy-service > Server: 10.96.0.10 > Address: 10.96.0.10#53 > > Name: dmq-proxy-service.default.svc.cluster.local > Address: 172.22.5.83 > Name: dmq-proxy-service.default.svc.cluster.local > Address: 172.22.5.84 > Name: dmq-proxy-service.default.svc.cluster.local > Address: 10.32.68.202 > Name: dmq-proxy-service.default.svc.cluster.local > Address: 172.22.5.81 > Name: dmq-proxy-service.default.svc.cluster.local > Address: 172.22.5.82 > ``` > > So why is that? > > Then I noticed that on one node I do have all the other IPs: > ```kamcmd> dmq.list_nodes > { > host: 172.22.5.81 > port: 5061 > resolved_ip: 172.22.5.81 > status: active > last_notification: 0 > local: 0 > } > { > host: 172.22.5.82 > port: 5061 > resolved_ip: 172.22.5.82 > status: active > last_notification: 0 > local: 0 > } > { > host: 172.22.5.83 > port: 5061 > resolved_ip: 172.22.5.83 > status: active > last_notification: 0 > local: 0 > } > { > host: 172.22.5.84 > port: 5061 > resolved_ip: 172.22.5.84 > status: active > last_notification: 0 > local: 1 > } > ``` > > But on another one: > ``` > kamcmd> dmq.list_nodes > { > host: 172.22.5.83 > port: 5061 > resolved_ip: 172.22.5.83 > status: active > last_notification: 0 > local: 0 > } > { > host: 172.22.5.81 > port: 5061 > resolved_ip: 172.22.5.81 > status: active > last_notification: 0 > local: 0 > } > { > host: 172.22.5.82 > port: 5061 > resolved_ip: 172.22.5.82 > status: active > last_notification: 0 > local: 1 > } > ``` > I miss a node? And all the kamailio instances in this range are the > same with the same config. Also the missing node is not the ip of the > node itself but another one. > -- > Aleksandar Sosic > mail: alex.sosic(a)evosip.cloudOn Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 9:21 AM Aleksandar > Sosic &lt;alex.sosic(a)evosip.cloud&gt; wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 12:35 PM Charles Chance > > &lt;charles.chance(a)sipcentric.com&gt; wrote: > > > I'll take a look - which version are you using? > > > > 5.2.0~dev6+0~20180616010152.1138+xenial > > > > Thank you! > > -- > > Aleksandar Sosic > > mail: alex.sosic(a)evosip.cloud

Hi, I have just pushed some changes to master - one of these allows startup to continue even if initial node resolution fails. There are some other improvements, too, which I have been planning to push for some time and which should also help in your situation. Can you try again with these changes applied and let me know the outcome? Cheers, Charles

dmq-router-service.paolo.svc.cluster.local

Hi Aleksandar, The initial depopulation of the nodes (following a period of 'pending' state) is due to no response being received from them. Are you able to trace the messages to/from one of them to confirm what is happening there? As for the unrecognised IP, I'm afraid I can't answer that one. It must be coming from somewhere - it's just a case of finding out where. Following the initial population/depopulation of the node list, DMQ simply repeats the process over and over until it eventually connects to one or more other nodes. Are you running on a public cloud somewhere or is it your own, locally running Kubernetes cluster? Cheers, Charles On 26 July 2018 at 15:30, Aleksandar Sosic &lt;alex.sosic(a)evosip.cloud&gt; wrote: -- *Charles Chance* Managing Director t. 0330 120 1200 m. 07932 063 891 Sipcentric Ltd. Company registered in England & Wales no. 7365592. Registered office: Faraday Wharf, Innovation Birmingham Campus, Holt Street, Birmingham Science Park, Birmingham B7 4BB. _______________________________________________ Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users

Hello again! Another interesting thing found running in debug=3 0(710) DEBUG: dmq [notification_peer.c:240]: get_dmq_host_list(): adding DMQ node A host dmq-router-service=sip:42.100.109.113:5062 so , kamailio "resolves" A host but does not query the DNS this is dump of dns request inside kamailio container: 147 0.597474 10.42.1.251 → 10.96.0.10 DNS 102 Standard query 0xf31d SRV dmq-router-service.paolo.svc.cluster.local 151 0.598306 10.96.0.10 → 10.42.1.251 DNS 155 Standard query response 0xf31d SRV dmq-router-service.paolo.svc.cluster.local SRV 10 100 0 3934376365383035.dmq-router-service.paolo.svc.cluster.local A 172.28.0.240 156 0.598538 10.42.1.251 → 10.96.0.10 DNS 102 Standard query 0x1904 A dmq-router-service.paolo.svc.cluster.local 163 0.599275 10.96.0.10 → 10.42.1.251 DNS 118 Standard query response 0x1904 A dmq-router-service.paolo.svc.cluster.local A 172.28.0.240 *Paolo Visintin* *CTO* evosip.cloud [image: Risultati immagini per evosip] 2018-08-02 0:24 GMT+02:00 Paolo Visintin - evosip.cloud < paolo.visintin(a)evosip.cloud&gt;gt;: _______________________________________________ Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users

I am able to see 0(710) DEBUG: dmq [notification_peer.c:240]: get_dmq_host_list(): adding DMQ node A host dmq-router-service=sip:42.100.109.113:5062 but in tcpdump no DNS query Also doing a loop of "kamcmd dns.lookup A dmq-router-service.paolo.svc.c luster.local" and starting kamailio at the same time the result is always the correct ip, no 42.100.109.113 coming up so this is very strange!

2018-08-02 15:29 GMT+02:00 Charles Chance &lt;charles.chance(a)sipcentric.com&gt;om>: > Hi Paolo, > > kamailio "resolves" A host but does not query the DNS > > > What do you mean by this? > > I am not overly familiar with Kamailio's DNS internals, but what do you > see if you run the following commands? > > kamcmd dns.lookup SRV _sip._udp.dmq-router-service.paolo.svc.cluster.local > > kamcmd dns.lookup A dmq-router-service.paolo.svc.cluster.local > > Cheers, > > Charles > > > On 2 August 2018 at 13:27, Paolo Visintin - evosip.cloud < > > paolo.visintin(a)evosip.cloud&gt; wrote: >> Hello again! >> Another interesting thing found running in debug=3 >> >> 0(710) DEBUG: dmq [notification_peer.c:240]: get_dmq_host_list(): adding >> DMQ node A host dmq-router-service=sip:42.100.109.113:5062 >> >> so , kamailio "resolves" A host but does not query the DNS >> this is dump of dns request inside kamailio container: >> >> 147 0.597474 10.42.1.251 → 10.96.0.10 DNS 102 Standard query 0xf31d >> SRV dmq-router-service.paolo.svc.cluster.local >> 151 0.598306 10.96.0.10 → 10.42.1.251 DNS 155 Standard query >> response 0xf31d SRV dmq-router-service.paolo.svc.cluster.local SRV 10 >> 100 0 3934376365383035.dmq-router-service.paolo.svc.cluster.local A >> 172.28.0.240 >> 156 0.598538 10.42.1.251 → 10.96.0.10 DNS 102 Standard query 0x1904 >> A dmq-router-service.paolo.svc.cluster.local >> 163 0.599275 10.96.0.10 → 10.42.1.251 DNS 118 Standard query >> response 0x1904 A dmq-router-service.paolo.svc.cluster.local A >> 172.28.0.240 >> >> >> >> *Paolo Visintin* >> *CTO* >> evosip.cloud >> [image: Risultati immagini per evosip] >> >> 2018-08-02 0:24 GMT+02:00 Paolo Visintin - evosip.cloud < >> >> paolo.visintin(a)evosip.cloud&gt;gt;: >>> Hello Charles, >>> sorry for late reply, we've had some issues rebuilding docker images >>> with kamailo nightly build! >>> >>> We are running on our local, private on premise kubernetes cluster so >>> connections from outside is simply impossible (in dev we are using a >>> "closed" network system) >>> >>> I've just tried to : >>> - open a tcpdump trace in the instance tracing only the DMQ port defined >>> [5062] - (tcpdump -i eth0 port 5062) >>> - packet coming from nowhere >>> - started kamailio ($kamailio -f $PATH_KAMAILIO_CFG -m 512 -DD -E -e) >>> - seeing this in tcpdump : >>> >>> root@router-0:/# tcpdump -i eth0 port 5062 >>> tcpdump: verbose output suppressed, use -v or -vv for full protocol >>> decode >>> listening on eth0, link-type EN10MB (Ethernet), capture size 262144 >>> bytes >>> 22:06:44.966991 IP router-0.router.paolo.svc.cluster.local.5062 > >>> 42.100.109.113.5062: UDP, length 497 >>> 22:06:45.572084 IP router-0.router.paolo.svc.cluster.local.5062 > >>> 42.100.109.113.5062: UDP, length 497 >>> 22:06:46.571875 IP router-0.router.paolo.svc.cluster.local.5062 > >>> 42.100.109.113.5062: UDP, length 497 >>> >>> so seems that kamailio is trying to contact the foreign ip >>> >>> if i check inside the configuration: >>> modparam("dmq", "server_address", DMQ_SERVER_ADDRESS) >>> modparam("dmq", "notification_address", DMQ_NOTIFICATION_ADDRESS) >>> modparam("dmq", "multi_notify", 1) >>> modparam("dmq", "num_workers", 4) >>> modparam("dmq", "ping_interval", 15) >>> >>> >>> ... >>> >>> if(is_method("KDMQ") && dst_port == DMQ_PORT){ >>> >>> dmq_handle_message(); >>> exit; >>> >>> } >>> >>> and in DMQ_NOTIFICATION_ADDRESS I have : >>> #!define DMQ_NOTIFICATION_ADDRESS "sip:dmq-router-service:5062" >>> >>> dmq-router-service DNS resolves: >>> > dmq-router-service.paolo.svc.cluster.local >>> >>> Server: 10.96.0.10 >>> Address: 10.96.0.10#53 >>> >>> Non-authoritative answer: >>> Name: dmq-router-service.paolo.svc.cluster.local >>> Address: 172.28.0.240 >>> >>> >>> so -nowhere- i am able to find 42.100.109.113 >>> >>> >>> and in kamailio log: >>> 13(821) ERROR: dmq [notification_peer.c:599]: >>> notification_resp_callback_f(): deleting server sip:42.100.109.113:5062 >>> because of failed request >>> >>> >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Paolo >>> >>> 2018-07-26 18:14 GMT+02:00 Charles Chance &lt;charles.chance(a)sipcentric.com >>> >>>> Hi Aleksandar, >>>> >>>> The initial depopulation of the nodes (following a period of 'pending' >>>> state) is due to no response being received from them. Are you able to >>>> trace the messages to/from one of them to confirm what is happening >>>> there? >>>> >>>> As for the unrecognised IP, I'm afraid I can't answer that one. It must >>>> be coming from somewhere - it's just a case of finding out where. >>>> Following >>>> the initial population/depopulation of the node list, DMQ simply >>>> repeats >>>> the process over and over until it eventually connects to one or more >>>> other >>>> nodes. Are you running on a public cloud somewhere or is it your own, >>>> locally running Kubernetes cluster? >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> Charles >>>> >>>> >>>> On 26 July 2018 at 15:30, Aleksandar Sosic &lt;alex.sosic(a)evosip.cloud&gt; >>>> >>>> wrote: >>>>> Hi Charles, >>>>> >>>>> We're so glad about the improvements you just committed! Thanks! >>>>> >>>>> Now I'm using the latest nightly: 5.2.0~dev6+0~20180726010431.11 >>>>> 65+xenial >>>>> Kamailio starts even if the DNS record does not exist at first, that's >>>>> great. I'm having this nodes up and running: >>>>> ``` >>>>> proxy-66f79498cc-8ws6d 3/3 Running 0 >>>>> 4m 172.28.1.4 >>>>> proxy-66f79498cc-b68dd 3/3 Running 0 >>>>> 4m 172.28.1.5 >>>>> proxy-66f79498cc-lhbxg 3/3 Running 0 >>>>> 4m 172.28.1.6 >>>>> proxy-66f79498cc-png6p 3/3 Running 0 >>>>> 4m 172.28.1.7 >>>>> ``` >>>>> >>>>> In those 4-5 minutes I've experienced a population and depopulation of >>>>> the dmq nodes. >>>>> >>>>> For example: >>>>> ``` >>>>> kamcmd> dmq.list_nodes >>>>> { >>>>> host: 172.28.1.4 >>>>> port: 5061 >>>>> resolved_ip: 172.28.1.4 >>>>> status: pending >>>>> last_notification: 0 >>>>> local: 0 >>>>> } >>>>> { >>>>> host: 172.28.1.6 >>>>> port: 5061 >>>>> resolved_ip: 172.28.1.6 >>>>> status: pending >>>>> last_notification: 0 >>>>> local: 0 >>>>> } >>>>> { >>>>> host: 40.100.109.113 >>>>> port: 5061 >>>>> resolved_ip: 40.100.109.113 >>>>> status: pending >>>>> last_notification: 0 >>>>> local: 0 >>>>> } >>>>> { >>>>> host: 172.28.1.5 >>>>> port: 5061 >>>>> resolved_ip: 172.28.1.5 >>>>> status: active >>>>> last_notification: 0 >>>>> local: 1 >>>>> } >>>>> ``` >>>>> >>>>> And after a few seconds only the loca node itself: >>>>> ``` >>>>> kamcmd> dmq.list_nodes >>>>> { >>>>> host: 172.28.1.5 >>>>> port: 5061 >>>>> resolved_ip: 172.28.1.5 >>>>> status: active >>>>> last_notification: 0 >>>>> local: 1 >>>>> } >>>>> ``` >>>>> And then again the 3 nodes and the 40.100.109.113 which is a Microsoft >>>>> IP and I don't know what's doing that IP into my dmq server list. >>>>> >>>>> The DNS record is this: >>>>> ``` >>>>> root@proxy-66f79498cc-b68dd:/# nslookup dmq-proxy-service >>>>> Server: 10.96.0.10 >>>>> Address: 10.96.0.10#53 >>>>> >>>>> Non-authoritative answer: >>>>> Name: dmq-proxy-service.alex.svc.cluster.local >>>>> Address: 172.28.1.7 >>>>> Name: dmq-proxy-service.alex.svc.cluster.local >>>>> Address: 172.28.1.6 >>>>> Name: dmq-proxy-service.alex.svc.cluster.local >>>>> Address: 172.28.1.5 >>>>> Name: dmq-proxy-service.alex.svc.cluster.local >>>>> Address: 172.28.1.4 >>>>> ``` >>>>> Any clues why that ip is in the dmq nodes list? And why .7 is missing? >>>>> Kind regards, >>>>> -- >>>>> Aleksandar Sosic >>>>> mail: alex.sosic(a)evosip.cloud >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 3:06 PM Charles Chance >>>>> >>>>> &lt;charles.chance(a)sipcentric.com&gt; wrote: >>>>> > Hi, >>>>> > >>>>> > I have just pushed some changes to master - one of these allows >>>>> >>>>> startup to continue even if initial node resolution fails. >>>>> >>>>> > There are some other improvements, too, which I have been planning >>>>> >>>>> to push for some time and which should also help in your situation. >>>>> >>>>> > Can you try again with these changes applied and let me know the >>>>> >>>>> outcome? >>>>> >>>>> > Cheers, >>>>> > >>>>> > Charles >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List >>>>> sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org >>>>> https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users >>>> >>>> -- >>>> *Charles Chance* >>>> Managing Director >>>> >>>> t. 0330 120 1200 m. 07932 063 891 >>>> >>>> Sipcentric Ltd. Company registered in England & Wales no. 7365592. >>>> Registered office: Faraday Wharf, Innovation Birmingham Campus, Holt >>>> Street, >>>> Birmingham Science Park, Birmingham B7 4BB. >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List >>>> sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org >>>> https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List >> sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org >> https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users > > -- > *Charles Chance* > Managing Director > > t. 0330 120 1200 m. 07932 063 891 > > Sipcentric Ltd. Company registered in England & Wales no. 7365592. > Registered office: Faraday Wharf, Innovation Birmingham Campus, Holt > Street, > Birmingham Science Park, Birmingham B7 4BB.