10 Aug
2023
10 Aug
'23
3:01 p.m.
Hello!
I am looking into a problem where we have Kamailio forwarding calls to two
or more "recording-clients". I will try my best to describe the problem and
would appreciate it if someone has an idea what to do. Please feel free to
ask if you think I have forgotten to describe something that might be
important or something is unclear in what I have written.
We use use_dns_failover=yes and dns_srv_lb=yes so calls get load balancing
to the "recording-clients". There is also the t_set_fr(60000,1000)
parameter set so that if there is no response within 1 second it would try
the next recording-client. The SRV record points to two or more recording
clients.
It now happens that the recording-clients sometimes have some kind of
temporary problem so it will respond with a 503 after 5 seconds.
What happens is that after the 1 second timeout trying to get the INVITE
through to the first recording-client Kamailio will internally generate a
408. This will cause it to failover to another recording-client which
happily takes care of the INVITE and responds properly with a 200 OK.
Everything would have been just fine except for the fact that the first
recording-client is just slow and finally responds with a 503. This 503 is
not relayed backwards since a 200 has already been forwarded back to the
caller. But when receiving the 503 Kamailio will initiate a new INVITE
which is trying to set up a new call to a recording client. It looks like
it is doing a new failover regardless if it already has done a failover for
this failed transaction.
I don't want Kamailio to send that last INVITE when receiving the 503. How
can I configure Kamailio to disregard the last 503 (except for responding
with an ACK) and not initiate a new INVITE?
I have tried a lot of different changes to the configuration but failed to
achieve this, unfortunately. Do I need to use the dispatcher module to
achieve this?
/Mattis
11 Aug
11 Aug
9:46 p.m.
Hello,
this sounds odd. Are you maybe using a failure route to intercept the 503 and send the
INVITE to a new destination?
Cheers,
Henning
--
Henning Westerholt – https://skalatan.de/blog/
Kamailio services – https://gilawa.com<https://gilawa.com/>
From: Mattis Lind <mattislind(a)gmail.com>
Sent: Donnerstag, 10. August 2023 15:02
To: sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org
Subject: [SR-Users] Kamailio dns-failover / dns-loadbalancing with slow responding
client.
Hello!
I am looking into a problem where we have Kamailio forwarding calls to two or more
"recording-clients". I will try my best to describe the problem and would
appreciate it if someone has an idea what to do. Please feel free to ask if you think I
have forgotten to describe something that might be important or something is unclear in
what I have written.
We use use_dns_failover=yes and dns_srv_lb=yes so calls get load balancing to the
"recording-clients". There is also the t_set_fr(60000,1000) parameter set so
that if there is no response within 1 second it would try the next recording-client. The
SRV record points to two or more recording clients.
It now happens that the recording-clients sometimes have some kind of temporary problem so
it will respond with a 503 after 5 seconds.
What happens is that after the 1 second timeout trying to get the INVITE through to the
first recording-client Kamailio will internally generate a 408. This will cause it to
failover to another recording-client which happily takes care of the INVITE and responds
properly with a 200 OK.
Everything would have been just fine except for the fact that the first recording-client
is just slow and finally responds with a 503. This 503 is not relayed backwards since a
200 has already been forwarded back to the caller. But when receiving the 503 Kamailio
will initiate a new INVITE which is trying to set up a new call to a recording client. It
looks like it is doing a new failover regardless if it already has done a failover for
this failed transaction.
I don't want Kamailio to send that last INVITE when receiving the 503. How can I
configure Kamailio to disregard the last 503 (except for responding with an ACK) and not
initiate a new INVITE?
I have tried a lot of different changes to the configuration but failed to achieve this,
unfortunately. Do I need to use the dispatcher module to achieve this?
/Mattis
14 Aug
14 Aug
10:03 a.m.
Hello,
I'm having somewhat looks-alike problem with long responce from endpoints
and ended up tracking status of transaction (or dialog) htabled with
callerid key.
So, when I'm receiving an "outdated" responce, I'm checking the status
of
the whole transaction (or dialog) and acting accordingly.
Hopefuly, this idea can point you to solution.
Cheers,
Ihor
Le ven. 11 août 2023 à 22:32, Henning Westerholt <hw(a)gilawa.com> a écrit :
Hello,
this sounds odd. Are you maybe using a failure route to intercept the 503
and send the INVITE to a new destination?
Cheers,
Henning
--
Henning Westerholt – https://skalatan.de/blog/
Kamailio services – https://gilawa.com
*From:* Mattis Lind <mattislind(a)gmail.com>
*Sent:* Donnerstag, 10. August 2023 15:02
*To:* sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org
*Subject:* [SR-Users] Kamailio dns-failover / dns-loadbalancing with slow
responding client.
Hello!
I am looking into a problem where we have Kamailio forwarding calls to two
or more "recording-clients". I will try my best to describe the problem and
would appreciate it if someone has an idea what to do. Please feel free to
ask if you think I have forgotten to describe something that might be
important or something is unclear in what I have written.
We use use_dns_failover=yes and dns_srv_lb=yes so calls get load balancing
to the "recording-clients". There is also the t_set_fr(60000,1000)
parameter set so that if there is no response within 1 second it would try
the next recording-client. The SRV record points to two or more recording
clients.
It now happens that the recording-clients sometimes have some kind of
temporary problem so it will respond with a 503 after 5 seconds.
What happens is that after the 1 second timeout trying to get the INVITE
through to the first recording-client Kamailio will internally generate a
408. This will cause it to failover to another recording-client which
happily takes care of the INVITE and responds properly with a 200 OK.
Everything would have been just fine except for the fact that the first
recording-client is just slow and finally responds with a 503. This 503 is
not relayed backwards since a 200 has already been forwarded back to the
caller. But when receiving the 503 Kamailio will initiate a new INVITE
which is trying to set up a new call to a recording client. It looks like
it is doing a new failover regardless if it already has done a failover for
this failed transaction.
I don't want Kamailio to send that last INVITE when receiving the 503. How
can I configure Kamailio to disregard the last 503 (except for responding
with an ACK) and not initiate a new INVITE?
I have tried a lot of different changes to the configuration but failed to
achieve this, unfortunately. Do I need to use the dispatcher module to
achieve this?
/Mattis
__________________________________________________________
Kamailio - Users Mailing List - Non Commercial Discussions
To unsubscribe send an email to sr-users-leave(a)lists.kamailio.org
Important: keep the mailing list in the recipients, do not reply only to
the sender!
Edit mailing list options or unsubscribe:
--
Best regards,
Ihor (Igor)
11 a.m.
I had similar problems using dispatcher. Asterisk somehow locked up, so dispatcher moved
on before asterisk had sent 100 trying. After the call was up on another instance, the
first Asterisk suddenly responded and that caused a lot of issues. I could not repeat it,
but it happened now and then.
Maybe this is something that we should find a solution too. I don’t know what can be seen
as similarities here, but it seems like
an attempt to complete a transaction that is abandoned before any response then wakes up
after Kamailio finds another
server by using DNS or dispatcher (generating internal 408 timeout).
Food for thought.
/O
On 14 Aug 2023, at 10:03, Ihor Olkhovskyi
<igorolhovskiy(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hello,
I'm having somewhat looks-alike problem with long responce from endpoints and ended
up tracking status of transaction (or dialog) htabled with callerid key.
So, when I'm receiving an "outdated" responce, I'm checking the status
of the whole transaction (or dialog) and acting accordingly.
Hopefuly, this idea can point you to solution.
Cheers,
Ihor
Le ven. 11 août 2023 à 22:32, Henning Westerholt <hw(a)gilawa.com
<mailto:hw@gilawa.com>> a écrit :
Hello,
this sounds odd. Are you maybe using a failure route to intercept the 503 and send the
INVITE to a new destination?
Cheers,
Henning
--
Henning Westerholt – https://skalatan.de/blog/
Kamailio services – https://gilawa.com <https://gilawa.com/>
From: Mattis Lind <mattislind(a)gmail.com <mailto:mattislind@gmail.com>>
Sent: Donnerstag, 10. August 2023 15:02
To: sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org <mailto:sr-users@lists.kamailio.org>
Subject: [SR-Users] Kamailio dns-failover / dns-loadbalancing with slow responding
client.
Hello!
I am looking into a problem where we have Kamailio forwarding calls to two or more
"recording-clients". I will try my best to describe the problem and would
appreciate it if someone has an idea what to do. Please feel free to ask if you think I
have forgotten to describe something that might be important or something is unclear in
what I have written.
We use use_dns_failover=yes and dns_srv_lb=yes so calls get load balancing to the
"recording-clients". There is also the t_set_fr(60000,1000) parameter set so
that if there is no response within 1 second it would try the next recording-client. The
SRV record points to two or more recording clients.
It now happens that the recording-clients sometimes have some kind of temporary problem
so it will respond with a 503 after 5 seconds.
What happens is that after the 1 second timeout trying to get the INVITE through to the
first recording-client Kamailio will internally generate a 408. This will cause it to
failover to another recording-client which happily takes care of the INVITE and responds
properly with a 200 OK.
Everything would have been just fine except for the fact that the first recording-client
is just slow and finally responds with a 503. This 503 is not relayed backwards since a
200 has already been forwarded back to the caller. But when receiving the 503 Kamailio
will initiate a new INVITE which is trying to set up a new call to a recording client. It
looks like it is doing a new failover regardless if it already has done a failover for
this failed transaction.
I don't want Kamailio to send that last INVITE when receiving the 503. How can I
configure Kamailio to disregard the last 503 (except for responding with an ACK) and not
initiate a new INVITE?
I have tried a lot of different changes to the configuration but failed to achieve this,
unfortunately. Do I need to use the dispatcher module to achieve this?
/Mattis
__________________________________________________________
Kamailio - Users Mailing List - Non Commercial Discussions
To unsubscribe send an email to sr-users-leave(a)lists.kamailio.org
<mailto:sr-users-leave@lists.kamailio.org>
Important: keep the mailing list in the recipients, do not reply only to the sender!
Edit mailing list options or unsubscribe:
--
Best regards,
Ihor (Igor)
__________________________________________________________
Kamailio - Users Mailing List - Non Commercial Discussions
To unsubscribe send an email to sr-users-leave(a)lists.kamailio.org
Important: keep the mailing list in the recipients, do not reply only to the sender!
Edit mailing list options or unsubscribe:
1:08 p.m.
Hello Olle,
Thanks for the reply!
Den mån 14 aug. 2023 kl 11:24 skrev Olle E. Johansson <oej(a)edvina.net>et>:
I had similar problems using dispatcher. Asterisk
somehow locked up, so
dispatcher moved on before asterisk had sent 100 trying. After the call was
up on another instance, the first Asterisk suddenly responded and that
caused a lot of issues. I could not repeat it, but it happened now and
then.
That sounds a bit like the scenario I am having here.
Maybe this is something that we should find a solution too. I don’t know
what can be seen as similarities here, but it seems like
an attempt to complete a transaction that is abandoned before any response
then wakes up after Kamailio finds another
server by using DNS or dispatcher (generating internal 408 timeout).
I have a test case so that I can reproduce the scenario 100%. But I am
still too new to Kamailio to fully understand all the log output from it.
I am running version 5.5.3 and have not tried to upgrade since I was
convinced it was the config that was wrong. Perhaps I should try a later
version to see if that makes any difference.
If my recording client returns 100 Trying before the 503 I will just get a
new INVITE to the other recording-client in the DNS SRV response as
expected. If I then also lower the timeout of the fr_inv_timeout to be
lower than the time it takes to get the 503 it will send a CANCEL to the
recording client and also respond back to A with a 408 Timeout. It will NOT
do the DNS failover to the second recording-client in the DNS SRV response
as I expected.
It looks to me that these internally generated 408 are not handled in the
same way as the externally generated 503. I also tried to externally
generate a 408 (instead of the previously generated 503) in the recording
UAS. This resulted in a 408 sent towards A and no DNS failover taking place.
I have tried to read up on how the DNS failover and DNS load balancing is
supposed to work but I could not find much to read.
Found this document:
https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/blob/master/doc/tutorials/dns.txt
Quote:
"When its internal DNS cache is enabled, Kamailio can also use DNS
failover: if
one destination resolves to multiple addresses Kamailio can try all of
them until
it finds one to which it can successfully send the packet or it exhausts
all
of them. Kamailio (The tm module to be more precise) uses the DNS
failover also
when the destination host doesn't send any reply to a forwarded invite
within the
SIP timeout interval (whose value can be configured using the tm fr_timer
parameter).
When SRV based load balancing is enabled Kamailio can even do DNS based
load
balancing (see RFC2782 and the dns_srv_lb option below). This is using the
weight value in the DNS SRV record."
" use_dns_failover = on | off - if on and sending a request fails (due to
not
being allowed from an onsend_route, send failure, blocklisted
destination
or, when using tm, invite timeout), and the destination resolves to
multiple ip addresses and/or multiple SRV records, the send will be
re-tried using the next ip/record. In tm's case a new branch will be
created for each new send attempt.
Default: off."
/Mattis
Food for thought.
/O
On 14 Aug 2023, at 10:03, Ihor Olkhovskyi <igorolhovskiy(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hello,
I'm having somewhat looks-alike problem with long responce from endpoints
and ended up tracking status of transaction (or dialog) htabled with
callerid key.
So, when I'm receiving an "outdated" responce, I'm checking the status
of
the whole transaction (or dialog) and acting accordingly.
Hopefuly, this idea can point you to solution.
Cheers,
Ihor
Le ven. 11 août 2023 à 22:32, Henning Westerholt <hw(a)gilawa.com> a écrit :
Hello,
this sounds odd. Are you maybe using a failure route to intercept the 503
and send the INVITE to a new destination?
Cheers,
Henning
--
Henning Westerholt – https://skalatan.de/blog/
Kamailio services – https://gilawa.com
*From:* Mattis Lind <mattislind(a)gmail.com>
*Sent:* Donnerstag, 10. August 2023 15:02
*To:* sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org
*Subject:* [SR-Users] Kamailio dns-failover / dns-loadbalancing with
slow responding client.
Hello!
I am looking into a problem where we have Kamailio forwarding calls to
two or more "recording-clients". I will try my best to describe the
problem and would appreciate it if someone has an idea what to do. Please
feel free to ask if you think I have forgotten to describe something that
might be important or something is unclear in what I have written.
We use use_dns_failover=yes and dns_srv_lb=yes so calls get load
balancing to the "recording-clients". There is also the
t_set_fr(60000,1000) parameter set so that if there is no response within 1
second it would try the next recording-client. The SRV record points to two
or more recording clients.
It now happens that the recording-clients sometimes have some kind of
temporary problem so it will respond with a 503 after 5 seconds.
What happens is that after the 1 second timeout trying to get the INVITE
through to the first recording-client Kamailio will internally generate a
408. This will cause it to failover to another recording-client which
happily takes care of the INVITE and responds properly with a 200 OK.
Everything would have been just fine except for the fact that the first
recording-client is just slow and finally responds with a 503. This 503 is
not relayed backwards since a 200 has already been forwarded back to the
caller. But when receiving the 503 Kamailio will initiate a new INVITE
which is trying to set up a new call to a recording client. It looks like
it is doing a new failover regardless if it already has done a failover for
this failed transaction.
I don't want Kamailio to send that last INVITE when receiving the 503.
How can I configure Kamailio to disregard the last 503 (except for
responding with an ACK) and not initiate a new INVITE?
I have tried a lot of different changes to the configuration but failed
to achieve this, unfortunately. Do I need to use the dispatcher module to
achieve this?
/Mattis
__________________________________________________________
Kamailio - Users Mailing List - Non Commercial Discussions
To unsubscribe send an email to sr-users-leave(a)lists.kamailio.org
Important: keep the mailing list in the recipients, do not reply only to
the sender!
Edit mailing list options or unsubscribe:
--
Best regards,
Ihor (Igor)
__________________________________________________________
Kamailio - Users Mailing List - Non Commercial Discussions
To unsubscribe send an email to sr-users-leave(a)lists.kamailio.org
Important: keep the mailing list in the recipients, do not reply only to
the sender!
Edit mailing list options or unsubscribe:
__________________________________________________________
Kamailio - Users Mailing List - Non Commercial Discussions
To unsubscribe send an email to sr-users-leave(a)lists.kamailio.org
Important: keep the mailing list in the recipients, do not reply only to
the sender!
Edit mailing list options or unsubscribe:
12:35 p.m.
Hello Ihor,
Thanks for the reply!
Den mån 14 aug. 2023 kl 10:49 skrev Ihor Olkhovskyi <igorolhovskiy(a)gmail.com
:
Hello,
I'm having somewhat looks-alike problem with long responce from endpoints
and ended up tracking status of transaction (or dialog) htabled with
callerid key.
So, when I'm receiving an "outdated" responce, I'm checking the status
of
the whole transaction (or dialog) and acting accordingly.
Hopefuly, this idea can point you to solution.
I am a bit new to kamailio so I would like you to elaborate a bit if you
are able to do so.
Thanks!
/Mattis
Cheers,
Ihor
Le ven. 11 août 2023 à 22:32, Henning Westerholt <hw(a)gilawa.com> a écrit :
Hello,
this sounds odd. Are you maybe using a failure route to intercept the 503
and send the INVITE to a new destination?
Cheers,
Henning
--
Henning Westerholt – https://skalatan.de/blog/
Kamailio services – https://gilawa.com
*From:* Mattis Lind <mattislind(a)gmail.com>
*Sent:* Donnerstag, 10. August 2023 15:02
*To:* sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org
*Subject:* [SR-Users] Kamailio dns-failover / dns-loadbalancing with
slow responding client.
Hello!
I am looking into a problem where we have Kamailio forwarding calls to
two or more "recording-clients". I will try my best to describe the
problem and would appreciate it if someone has an idea what to do. Please
feel free to ask if you think I have forgotten to describe something that
might be important or something is unclear in what I have written.
We use use_dns_failover=yes and dns_srv_lb=yes so calls get load
balancing to the "recording-clients". There is also the
t_set_fr(60000,1000) parameter set so that if there is no response within 1
second it would try the next recording-client. The SRV record points to two
or more recording clients.
It now happens that the recording-clients sometimes have some kind of
temporary problem so it will respond with a 503 after 5 seconds.
What happens is that after the 1 second timeout trying to get the INVITE
through to the first recording-client Kamailio will internally generate a
408. This will cause it to failover to another recording-client which
happily takes care of the INVITE and responds properly with a 200 OK.
Everything would have been just fine except for the fact that the first
recording-client is just slow and finally responds with a 503. This 503 is
not relayed backwards since a 200 has already been forwarded back to the
caller. But when receiving the 503 Kamailio will initiate a new INVITE
which is trying to set up a new call to a recording client. It looks like
it is doing a new failover regardless if it already has done a failover for
this failed transaction.
I don't want Kamailio to send that last INVITE when receiving the 503.
How can I configure Kamailio to disregard the last 503 (except for
responding with an ACK) and not initiate a new INVITE?
I have tried a lot of different changes to the configuration but failed
to achieve this, unfortunately. Do I need to use the dispatcher module to
achieve this?
/Mattis
__________________________________________________________
Kamailio - Users Mailing List - Non Commercial Discussions
To unsubscribe send an email to sr-users-leave(a)lists.kamailio.org
Important: keep the mailing list in the recipients, do not reply only to
the sender!
Edit mailing list options or unsubscribe:
--
Best regards,
Ihor (Igor)
__________________________________________________________
Kamailio - Users Mailing List - Non Commercial Discussions
To unsubscribe send an email to sr-users-leave(a)lists.kamailio.org
Important: keep the mailing list in the recipients, do not reply only to
the sender!
Edit mailing list options or unsubscribe:
12:32 p.m.
Hello and thanks for the reply!
Den fre 11 aug. 2023 kl 21:46 skrev Henning Westerholt <hw(a)gilawa.com>om>:
Hello,
this sounds odd. Are you maybe using a failure route to intercept the 503
and send the INVITE to a new destination?
I have checked the failure_routes and the only one it should be able to
take only prints some logging. To be on the safe side I added logging to
every failure_route and I cannot see it takes any of those failure_routes
actually.
When the implicit 408 is processed I can see that it goes through
event_route[tm:branch-failure:xyz] but that route also has only log
printouts. No action is taken here either. While processing the 503 it
doesn't seem to go through the event_route[tm:branch-failure:xyz], though.
I have enabled extra level of debug prints for tm , tmx and core. Is there
any other module I should enable as well?
I have tried to understand the log but had a hard time to figure out why
this is happening. What I can see is that the processing of the 503 differs
a lot from how the "implicit" 408 was processed. For example in the log for
503 it is possible to see the (as I understand it) DNS failover (
*dns_a_resolve()*)in action while no such thing can be seen when the
"implicit" 408 is processed.
Sorry for appending this lengthy log file produced but it is what I am now
trying to understand. BTW. I am using Kamailio 5.5.3. Perhaps I should try
a later version but I am under the impression that it is my configuration
that is at fault unless otherwise proven.
/Mattis
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[334]: DEBUG: <core>
[core/io_wait.h:600]: io_watch_del(): DBG: io_watch_del (0x561d25d75420,
78, -1, 0x0) fd_no=61 called*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[334]: DEBUG: <core>
[core/tcp_main.c:4471]: handle_tcpconn_ev(): sending to child, events 1*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[334]: DEBUG: <core>
[core/tcp_main.c:4141]: send2child(): selected tcp worker idx:4 proc:40
pid:330 for activity on [tcp:127.0.0.1:5080 <http://127.0.0.1:5080>],
0x7ff6d547d848*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: <core>
[core/tcp_read.c:1737]: handle_io(): received n=8 con=0x7ff6d547d848, fd=14*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: <core>
[core/parser/parse_fline.c:249]: parse_first_line(): first line type 2
(reply(status)) flags 1*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: <core>
[core/tcp_read.c:1536]: tcp_read_req(): content-length=212*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: <core>
[core/receive.c:126]: sip_check_fline(): first line indicates a SIP reply*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: <core>
[core/proxy.c:264]: mk_proxy(): doing DNS lookup...*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: <core>
[core/forward.c:175]: get_out_socket(): socket determined: 0x7ff6deb793b0*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: <core>
[core/parser/parse_fline.c:249]: parse_first_line(): first line type 2
(reply(status)) flags 1*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: <core>
[core/parser/msg_parser.c:687]: parse_msg(): SIP Reply (status):*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: <core>
[core/parser/msg_parser.c:689]: parse_msg(): version: <SIP/2.0>*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: <core>
[core/parser/msg_parser.c:691]: parse_msg(): status: <503>*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: <core>
[core/parser/msg_parser.c:693]: parse_msg(): reason: <Failure>*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: <core>
[core/parser/parse_hname2.c:293]: parse_sip_header_name(): parsed header
name [Via] type 1*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: <core>
[core/parser/parse_via.c:1303]: parse_via_param(): Found param type 232,
<branch> = <z9hG4bKc71d.683e467296bf493c4deb34680f739eb2.0>; state=6*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: <core>
[core/parser/parse_via.c:1303]: parse_via_param(): Found param type 236,
<i> = <2>; state=6*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: <core>
[core/parser/parse_via.c:1303]: parse_via_param(): Found param type 234,
<received> = <127.0.0.1>; state=16*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: <core>
[core/parser/parse_via.c:2639]: parse_via(): end of header reached, state=5*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: <core>
[core/parser/msg_parser.c:555]: parse_headers(): Via found, flags=2*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: <core>
[core/parser/msg_parser.c:557]: parse_headers(): this is the first via*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: <core>
[core/parser/parse_hname2.c:293]: parse_sip_header_name(): parsed header
name [Via] type 1*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: <core>
[core/parser/parse_via.c:1303]: parse_via_param(): Found param type 235,
<rport> = <52292>; state=6*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: <core>
[core/parser/parse_via.c:1303]: parse_via_param(): Found param type 234,
<received> = <172.17.0.2>; state=6*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: <core>
[core/parser/parse_via.c:1303]: parse_via_param(): Found param type 232,
<branch> = <z9hG4bK301728>; state=16*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: <core>
[core/parser/parse_via.c:2639]: parse_via(): end of header reached, state=5*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: <core>
[core/parser/msg_parser.c:555]: parse_headers(): Via found, flags=78*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: <core>
[core/parser/msg_parser.c:568]: parse_headers(): this is the second via*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: <core>
[core/parser/parse_hname2.c:293]: parse_sip_header_name(): parsed header
name [To] type 3*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: <core>
[core/parser/parse_addr_spec.c:185]: parse_to_param(): add param:
tag=275047*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: <core>
[core/parser/parse_addr_spec.c:884]: parse_addr_spec(): end of header
reached, state=29*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: <core>
[core/parser/msg_parser.c:173]: get_hdr_field(): <To> [73];
uri=[sip:siprec@sip.dev.abc.com
<sip%3Asiprec(a)sip.dev.abc.com>;transport=tcp;transport=tcp]*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: <core>
[core/parser/msg_parser.c:176]: get_hdr_field(): to body
(60)[<sip:siprec@sip.dev.abc.com
<sip%3Asiprec(a)sip.dev.abc.com>;transport=tcp;transport=tcp>]=tcp>], to tag
(6)[275047]*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: <core>
[core/parser/parse_hname2.c:293]: parse_sip_header_name(): parsed header
name [From] type 4*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: <core>
[core/parser/parse_hname2.c:293]: parse_sip_header_name(): parsed header
name [Call-ID] type 6*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: <core>
[core/parser/parse_hname2.c:293]: parse_sip_header_name(): parsed header
name [CSeq] type 5*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: <core>
[core/parser/msg_parser.c:154]: get_hdr_field(): cseq <CSeq>: <26880>
<INVITE>*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: <core>
[core/receive.c:387]: receive_msg(): --- received sip message - reply -
call-id: [2571561691999559409] - cseq: [26880 INVITE]*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: <core>
[core/receive.c:259]: ksr_evrt_pre_routing(): event route core:pre-routing
not defined*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: INFO: <script>: In
reply_route 503 INVITE 2571561691999559409 SIP/2.0 503 Failure#015#012Via:
SIP/2.0/TCP
172.17.0.2:5060;branch=z9hG4bKc71d.683e467296bf493c4deb34680f739eb2.0;i=2;received=127.0.0.1#015#012Via:
SIP/2.0/TCP
127.0.0.1:35090;rport=52292;received=172.17.0.2;branch=z9hG4bK301728#015#012To:
<sip:siprec@sip.dev.abc.com
<sip%3Asiprec(a)sip.dev.abc.com>;transport=tcp;transport=tcp>;tag=275047#015#012From5#012From:
<sip:systemtest@sip.dev.abc.com
<sip%3Asystemtest(a)sip.dev.abc.com>>;tag=408469#015#012Call-ID12Call-ID:
2571561691999559409#015#012CSeq: 26880 INVITE#015#012Content-Type:
application/sdp#015#012Contact:
<sip:siprec@127.0.0.1:35091;transport=tcp>#015#012Record-Route:
<sip:172.17.0.2;r2=on;transport=tcp;lr>,
<sip:172.17.0.2:5060;r2=on;transport=tcp;lr>#015#012Content-Length:
212#015#012#015#012v=0#015#012o=- 132273 930181 IN IP4
127.0.0.1#015#012s=-#015#012c=IN IP4 127.0.0.1#015#012t=0 0#015#012m=audio
30002 RTP/AVP 8 101#015#012a=rtpmap:8
PCMA/8000#015#012a=ptime:20#015#012a=rtpmap:101
telephone-event/8000#015#012a=fmtp:101
0-15#015#012a=ptime:20#015#012a=sendrecv#015*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: tmx
[t_var.c:561]: pv_get_tm_reply_code(): reply code is <503>*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: tmx
[t_var.c:561]: pv_get_tm_reply_code(): reply code is <503>*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: <core>
[core/parser/parse_hname2.c:293]: parse_sip_header_name(): parsed header
name [Content-Type] type 11*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: <core>
[core/parser/parse_hname2.c:293]: parse_sip_header_name(): parsed header
name [Contact] type 7*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: <core>
[core/parser/parse_hname2.c:293]: parse_sip_header_name(): parsed header
name [Record-Route] type 10*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: <core>
[core/parser/parse_hname2.c:293]: parse_sip_header_name(): parsed header
name [Content-Length] type 12*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: <core>
[core/parser/msg_parser.c:187]: get_hdr_field(): content_length=212*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: <core>
[core/parser/msg_parser.c:91]: get_hdr_field(): found end of header*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: tm
[t_lookup.c:1034]: t_check_msg(): msg (0x7ff6df4cbf68) id=1/330 global
id=0/0 T start=0xffffffffffffffff*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: tm
[t_lookup.c:912]: t_reply_matching(): t_reply_matching: hash 53628 label 0
branch 0*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: tm
[t_lookup.c:967]: t_reply_matching(): reply (0x7ff6df4cbf68) matched an
active transaction (T=0x7ff6d5477fc0)!*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: tm
[t_hooks.c:256]: run_trans_callbacks_internal(): DBG: trans=0x7ff6d5477fc0,
callback type 2, id 0 entered*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: tm
[t_hooks.c:256]: run_trans_callbacks_internal(): DBG: trans=0x7ff6d5477fc0,
callback type 2, id 0 entered*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: tm
[t_lookup.c:1103]: t_check_msg(): msg (0x7ff6df4cbf68) id=1/330 global
id=1/330 T end=0x7ff6d5477fc0*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: <core>
[core/parser/parse_fline.c:249]: parse_first_line(): first line type 1
(request) flags 1*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: <core>
[core/parser/msg_parser.c:677]: parse_msg(): SIP Request:*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: <core>
[core/parser/msg_parser.c:679]: parse_msg(): method: <INVITE>*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: <core>
[core/parser/msg_parser.c:681]: parse_msg(): uri:
<sip:siprec@sip.dev.abc.com <sip%3Asiprec(a)sip.dev.abc.com>;transport=tcp>*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: <core>
[core/parser/msg_parser.c:683]: parse_msg(): version: <SIP/2.0>*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: <core>
[core/parser/parse_hname2.c:293]: parse_sip_header_name(): parsed header
name [To] type 3*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: <core>
[core/parser/parse_addr_spec.c:884]: parse_addr_spec(): end of header
reached, state=10*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: <core>
[core/parser/msg_parser.c:173]: get_hdr_field(): <To> [62];
uri=[sip:siprec@sip.dev.abc.com
<sip%3Asiprec(a)sip.dev.abc.com>;transport=tcp;transport=tcp]*
*debug: Data:
{"event":"stopped","params":{"dialogId":"2571561691999559409"}}*
*debug: Line:
{"event":"stopped","params":{"dialogId":"2571561691999559409"}}*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: <core>
[core/parser/msg_parser.c:176]: get_hdr_field(): to body
(62)[<sip:siprec@sip.dev.abc.com
<sip%3Asiprec(a)sip.dev.abc.com>;transport=tcp;transport=tcp>#015#012]#015#012], to
tag (0)[]*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: <core>
[core/parser/parse_hname2.c:293]: parse_sip_header_name(): parsed header
name [From] type 4*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: <core>
[core/parser/parse_hname2.c:293]: parse_sip_header_name(): parsed header
name [Call-ID] type 6*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: <core>
[core/parser/parse_hname2.c:293]: parse_sip_header_name(): parsed header
name [CSeq] type 5*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: <core>
[core/parser/msg_parser.c:154]: get_hdr_field(): cseq <CSeq>: <26880>
<INVITE>*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: <core>
[core/parser/parse_hname2.c:293]: parse_sip_header_name(): parsed header
name [Contact] type 7*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: <core>
[core/parser/parse_hname2.c:293]: parse_sip_header_name(): parsed header
name [Max-Forwards] type 8*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: <core>
[core/parser/parse_hname2.c:293]: parse_sip_header_name(): parsed header
name [Route] type 9*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: <core>
[core/parser/parse_hname2.c:293]: parse_sip_header_name(): parsed header
name [Content-Type] type 11*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: <core>
[core/parser/parse_hname2.c:293]: parse_sip_header_name(): parsed header
name [Via] type 1*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: <core>
[core/parser/parse_via.c:1303]: parse_via_param(): Found param type 232,
<branch> = <z9hG4bK301728>; state=16*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: <core>
[core/parser/parse_via.c:2639]: parse_via(): end of header reached, state=5*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: <core>
[core/parser/msg_parser.c:555]: parse_headers(): Via found, flags=2*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: <core>
[core/parser/msg_parser.c:557]: parse_headers(): this is the first via*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: INFO: <script>:
reply_route - Received reply - in if for 503 for <null> 503 with callid
2571561691999559409 INVITE*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: tm
[t_lookup.c:1034]: t_check_msg(): msg (0x7ff6df4cbf68) id=1/330 global
id=1/330 T start=0x7ff6d5477fc0*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: tm
[t_lookup.c:1108]: t_check_msg(): T (0x7ff6d5477fc0) already found for msg
(0x7ff6df4cbf68)!*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: tm
[t_reply.c:2363]: reply_received(): transaction found - T:0x7ff6d5477fc0
branch:0*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: tm
[t_reply.c:2376]: reply_received(): original status uas=200, uac[0]=408
local=0 is_invite=1)*
*verbose: Got event for dialog: 2571561691999559409 stopped*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: <core>
[core/tcp_main.c:1623]: _tcpconn_find(): found connection by peer address
(id: 3)*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: <core>
[core/tcp_main.c:2485]: tcpconn_send_put(): send from reader (330 (40)),
reusing fd*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: <core>
[core/tcp_main.c:2720]: tcpconn_do_send(): sending...*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: <core>
[core/tcp_main.c:2753]: tcpconn_do_send(): after real write: c=
0x7ff6d547d848 n=423 fd=14*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: <core>
[core/tcp_main.c:2754]: tcpconn_do_send(): buf=#012ACK
sip:siprec@sip.dev.abc.com <sip%3Asiprec(a)sip.dev.abc.com>;transport=tcp
SIP/2.0#015#012To: <sip:siprec@sip.dev.abc.com
<sip%3Asiprec(a)sip.dev.abc.com>;transport=tcp;transport=tcp>;tag=275047#015#012From5#012From:
<sip:systemtest@sip.dev.abc.com
<sip%3Asystemtest(a)sip.dev.abc.com>>;tag=408469#015#012Call-ID12Call-ID:
2571561691999559409#015#012CSeq: 26880 ACK#015#012Max-Forwards:
70#015#012Route: <sip:172.17.0.2:5060;transport=tcp;lr=true>#015#012Via:
SIP/2.0/TCP
172.17.0.2:5060;branch=z9hG4bKc71d.683e467296bf493c4deb34680f739eb2.0;i=2#015#012Content-Length:
0#015#012#015#012*
*debug: emitting event=stopped, dialogId=2571561691999559409*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: <core>
[core/proxy.c:264]: mk_proxy(): doing DNS lookup...*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: <core>
[core/forward.c:175]: get_out_socket(): socket determined: 0x7ff6deb793b0*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: tmx
[t_var.c:561]: pv_get_tm_reply_code(): reply code is <503>*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: INFO: <script>:
Received reply for siprec 503 with callid 2571561691999559409 INVITE
SIP/2.0 503 Failure#015#012Via: SIP/2.0/TCP
172.17.0.2:5060;branch=z9hG4bKc71d.683e467296bf493c4deb34680f739eb2.0;i=2;received=127.0.0.1#015#012Via:
SIP/2.0/TCP
127.0.0.1:35090;rport=52292;received=172.17.0.2;branch=z9hG4bK301728#015#012To:
<sip:siprec@sip.dev.abc.com
<sip%3Asiprec(a)sip.dev.abc.com>;transport=tcp;transport=tcp>;tag=275047#015#012From5#012From:
<sip:systemtest@sip.dev.abc.com
<sip%3Asystemtest(a)sip.dev.abc.com>>;tag=408469#015#012Call-ID12Call-ID:
2571561691999559409#015#012CSeq: 26880 INVITE#015#012Content-Type:
application/sdp#015#012Contact:
<sip:siprec@127.0.0.1:35091;transport=tcp>#015#012Record-Route:
<sip:172.17.0.2;r2=on;transport=tcp;lr>,
<sip:172.17.0.2:5060;r2=on;transport=tcp;lr>#015#012Content-Length:
212#015#012#015#012v=0#015#012o=- 132273 930181 IN IP4
127.0.0.1#015#012s=-#015#012c=IN IP4 127.0.0.1#015#012t=0 0#015#012m=audio
30002 RTP/AVP 8 101#015#012a=rtpmap:8
PCMA/8000#015#012a=ptime:20#015#012a=rtpmap:101
telephone-event/8000#015#012a=fmtp:101
0-15#015#012a=ptime:20#015#012a=sendrecv#015*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: tmx
[t_var.c:561]: pv_get_tm_reply_code(): reply code is <503>*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: tmx
[t_var.c:561]: pv_get_tm_reply_code(): reply code is <503>*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: INFO: <script>:
Received reply - in if for 503 for siprec 503 with callid
2571561691999559409 INVITE*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: tm
[t_lookup.c:1034]: t_check_msg(): msg (0x7ff6df4cbf68) id=1/330 global
id=1/330 T start=0x7ff6d5477fc0*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: tm
[t_lookup.c:1108]: t_check_msg(): T (0x7ff6d5477fc0) already found for msg
(0x7ff6df4cbf68)!*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: tmx
[t_var.c:561]: pv_get_tm_reply_code(): reply code is <503>*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: INFO: <script>:
Received reply t_any_timeout siprec 503 with callid 2571561691999559409
INVITE*
*verbose: dtmfclient mediatool client stopped
{"dialogId":"2571561691999559409"}*
*debug: Line: *
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: tm
[t_lookup.c:1034]: t_check_msg(): msg (0x7ff6df4cbf68) id=1/330 global
id=1/330 T start=0x7ff6d5477fc0*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: tm
[t_lookup.c:1108]: t_check_msg(): T (0x7ff6d5477fc0) already found for msg
(0x7ff6df4cbf68)!*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: tmx
[t_var.c:561]: pv_get_tm_reply_code(): reply code is <503>*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: INFO: <script>:
Received reply t_any_replied() siprec 503 with callid 2571561691999559409
INVITE*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: tm
[t_lookup.c:1034]: t_check_msg(): msg (0x7ff6df4cbf68) id=1/330 global
id=1/330 T start=0x7ff6d5477fc0*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: tm
[t_lookup.c:1108]: t_check_msg(): T (0x7ff6d5477fc0) already found for msg
(0x7ff6df4cbf68)!*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: tm
[t_lookup.c:1034]: t_check_msg(): msg (0x7ff6df4cbf68) id=1/330 global
id=1/330 T start=0x7ff6d5477fc0*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: tm
[t_lookup.c:1108]: t_check_msg(): T (0x7ff6d5477fc0) already found for msg
(0x7ff6df4cbf68)!*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: tmx
[t_var.c:561]: pv_get_tm_reply_code(): reply code is <503>*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: INFO: <script>:
Received reply t_check_trans() siprec 503 with callid 2571561691999559409
INVITE*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: tmx
[t_var.c:561]: pv_get_tm_reply_code(): reply code is <503>*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: tm
[t_lookup.c:1034]: t_check_msg(): msg (0x7ff6df4cbf68) id=1/330 global
id=1/330 T start=0x7ff6d5477fc0*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: tm
[t_lookup.c:1108]: t_check_msg(): T (0x7ff6d5477fc0) already found for msg
(0x7ff6df4cbf68)!*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: tmx
[t_var.c:616]: pv_get_tm_reply_reason(): reply reason is [Failure]*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: <core>
[core/dns_cache.c:527]: _dns_hash_find(): (sip.dev.abc.com
<http://sip.dev.abc.com>(19), 35), h=780*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: <core>
[core/dns_cache.c:2807]: dns_a_resolve():
(i-00940045868948771.siprec.discovery.dev.abc.com
<http://i-00940045868948771.siprec.discovery.dev.abc.com>, 1) returning -1*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: <core>
[core/dns_cache.c:2222]: dns_srv_get_nxt_rr(): (0x7ff6d547d098, 0, 0,
1354222632): selected 0/1 in grp. 1 (rand_w=0, rr=0x7ff6d547d160
rd=0x7ff6d547d178 p=10 w=100 rsum=100)*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: <core>
[core/dns_cache.c:527]: _dns_hash_find():
(i-00940045868948772.siprec.discovery.dev.abc.com
<http://i-00940045868948772.siprec.discovery.dev.abc.com>(52), 1), h=876*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: <core>
[core/dns_cache.c:2807]: dns_a_resolve():
(i-00940045868948772.siprec.discovery.dev.abc.com
<http://i-00940045868948772.siprec.discovery.dev.abc.com>, 0) returning 0*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: <core>
[core/dns_cache.c:3050]: dns_srv_resolve_ip():
("_sip._tcp.siprec.discovery.dev.abc.com
<http://tcp.siprec.discovery.dev.abc.com>", 1, 0), ret=0, ip=127.0.0.1*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: <core>
[core/dns_cache.c:3163]: dns_srv_sip_resolve(): (sip.dev.abc.com
<http://sip.dev.abc.com>, 1, 0), srv, ret=0*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: <core>
[core/msg_translator.c:2985]: create_via_hf(): id added: <;i=2>, rcv
proto=2*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: INFO: <script>:
onsend_route INVITE sip:siprec@sip.dev.abc.com
<sip%3Asiprec(a)sip.dev.abc.com>;transport=tcp SIP/2.0#015#012To:
<sip:siprec@sip.dev.abc.com
<sip%3Asiprec(a)sip.dev.abc.com>;transport=tcp;transport=tcp>#015#012From5#012From:
<sip:systemtest@sip.dev.abc.com
<sip%3Asystemtest(a)sip.dev.abc.com>>;tag=408469#015#012Call-ID12Call-ID:
2571561691999559409#015#012CSeq: 26880 INVITE#015#012Contact:
<sip:systemtest@127.0.0.1:35090;transport=tcp>#015#012Max-Forwards:
70#015#012Route:
<sip:172.17.0.2:5060;transport=tcp;lr=true>#015#012Content-Type:
application/sdp#015#012Via: SIP/2.0/TCP
127.0.0.1:35090;branch=z9hG4bK301728#015#012Content-Length:
224#015#012#015#012v=0#015#012o=- 728318 394366 IN IP4
127.0.0.1#015#012s=-#015#012c=IN IP4 127.0.0.1#015#012t=0 0#015#012m=audio
30000 RTP/AVP 8 101#015#012a=rtpmap:8
PCMA/8000#015#012a=ptime:20#015#012a=sendrecv#015#012a=rtpmap:101
telephone-event/8000#015#012a=fmtp:101
0-15#015#012a=ptime:20#015#012a=sendrecv#015#012 *
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: <core>
[core/tcp_main.c:1623]: _tcpconn_find(): found connection by peer address
(id: 5)*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: <core>
[core/tcp_main.c:2501]: tcpconn_send_put(): tcp connection found
(0x7ff6d5487600), acquiring fd*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: <core>
[core/tcp_main.c:2511]: tcpconn_send_put(): c=0x7ff6d5487600, n=16*
*>>>>>> Here a ACK is received by the recording client.*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[334]: DEBUG: <core>
[core/tcp_main.c:3806]: handle_ser_child(): read response= 7ff6d5487600, 2,
fd -1 from 40 (330)*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: <core>
[core/tcp_main.c:2541]: tcpconn_send_put(): after receive_fd: c=
0x7ff6d5487600 n=8 fd=16*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: <core>
[core/tcp_main.c:2720]: tcpconn_do_send(): sending...*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: <core>
[core/tcp_main.c:2753]: tcpconn_do_send(): after real write: c=
0x7ff6d5487600 n=958 fd=16*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: <core>
[core/tcp_main.c:2754]: tcpconn_do_send(): buf=#012INVITE
sip:siprec@sip.dev.abc.com <sip%3Asiprec(a)sip.dev.abc.com>;transport=tcp
SIP/2.0#015#012Record-Route:
<sip:172.17.0.2;r2=on;transport=tcp;lr>#015#012Record-Route:
<sip:172.17.0.2:5060;r2=on;transport=tcp;lr>#015#012To:
<sip:siprec@sip.dev.abc.com
<sip%3Asiprec(a)sip.dev.abc.com>;transport=tcp;transport=tcp>#015#012From5#012From:
<sip:systemtest@sip.dev.abc.com
<sip%3Asystemtest(a)sip.dev.abc.com>>;tag=408469#015#012Call-ID12Call-ID:
2571561691999559409#015#012CSeq: 26880 INVITE#015#012Contact:
<sip:systemtest@127.0.0.1:35090;transport=tcp>#015#012Max-Forwards:
70#015#012Route:
<sip:172.17.0.2:5060;transport=tcp;lr=true>#015#012Content-Type:
application/sdp#015#012Via: SIP/2.0/TCP
172.17.0.2:5060;branch=z9hG4bKc71d.683e467296bf493c4deb34680f739eb2.2;i=2#015#012Via:
SIP/2.0/TCP
127.0.0.1:35090;rport=52292;received=172.17.0.2;branch=z9hG4bK301728#015#012Content-Length:
224#015#012X-auth-domain: <null>#015#012#015#012v=0#015#012o=- 728318
394366 IN IP4 127.0.0.1#015#012s=-#015#012c=IN IP4 127.0.0.1#015#012t=0
0#015#012m=audio 30000 RTP/AVP 8 101#015#012a=rtpmap:8
PCMA/8000#015#012a=ptime:20#015#012a=sendrecv#015#012a=rtpmap:101
telephone-event/8000#015#012a=fmtp:101
0-15#015#012a=ptime:20#015#012a=sendrecv#015#012*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: <core>
[core/proxy.c:264]: mk_proxy(): doing DNS lookup...*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: <core>
[core/forward.c:175]: get_out_socket(): socket determined: 0x7ff6deb793b0*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: tm
[t_reply.c:1363]: t_should_relay_response(): ->>>>>>>>>
T_code=200,
new_code=503*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: tm
[t_reply.c:1374]: t_should_relay_response(): final reply already sent*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: tm
[t_reply.c:1625]: t_should_relay_response(): finished with rps discarded -
uas status: 200*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: tm
[t_reply.c:1924]: relay_reply(): reply status=2 branch=0, save=0, relay=-1
icode=0 msg status=503*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: <core>
[core/receive.c:596]: receive_msg(): reply-route executed in: 9148 usec*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: <core>
[core/usr_avp.c:637]: destroy_avp_list(): destroying list (nil)*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: <core>
[core/usr_avp.c:637]: destroy_avp_list(): destroying list (nil)*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: <core>
[core/usr_avp.c:637]: destroy_avp_list(): destroying list (nil)*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: <core>
[core/usr_avp.c:637]: destroy_avp_list(): destroying list (nil)*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: <core>
[core/usr_avp.c:637]: destroy_avp_list(): destroying list (nil)*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: <core>
[core/usr_avp.c:637]: destroy_avp_list(): destroying list (nil)*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: <core>
[core/xavp.c:541]: xavp_destroy_list(): destroying xavp list (nil)*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: <core>
[core/xavp.c:541]: xavp_destroy_list(): destroying xavp list (nil)*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: <core>
[core/xavp.c:541]: xavp_destroy_list(): destroying xavp list (nil)*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: <core>
[core/receive.c:606]: receive_msg(): cleaning up*
*Aug 14 07:52:44 4e8d794e0e40 /usr/sbin/kamailio[330]: DEBUG: <core>
[core/io_wait.h:375]: io_watch_add(): processing
io_watch_add(0x561d25d08260, 14, 2, 0x7ff6d547d848) - fd_no=1*
Cheers,
Henning
--
Henning Westerholt – https://skalatan.de/blog/
Kamailio services – https://gilawa.com
*From:* Mattis Lind <mattislind(a)gmail.com>
*Sent:* Donnerstag, 10. August 2023 15:02
*To:* sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org
*Subject:* [SR-Users] Kamailio dns-failover / dns-loadbalancing with slow
responding client.
Hello!
I am looking into a problem where we have Kamailio forwarding calls to two
or more "recording-clients". I will try my best to describe the problem and
would appreciate it if someone has an idea what to do. Please feel free to
ask if you think I have forgotten to describe something that might be
important or something is unclear in what I have written.
We use use_dns_failover=yes and dns_srv_lb=yes so calls get load balancing
to the "recording-clients". There is also the t_set_fr(60000,1000)
parameter set so that if there is no response within 1 second it would try
the next recording-client. The SRV record points to two or more recording
clients.
It now happens that the recording-clients sometimes have some kind of
temporary problem so it will respond with a 503 after 5 seconds.
What happens is that after the 1 second timeout trying to get the INVITE
through to the first recording-client Kamailio will internally generate a
408. This will cause it to failover to another recording-client which
happily takes care of the INVITE and responds properly with a 200 OK.
Everything would have been just fine except for the fact that the first
recording-client is just slow and finally responds with a 503. This 503 is
not relayed backwards since a 200 has already been forwarded back to the
caller. But when receiving the 503 Kamailio will initiate a new INVITE
which is trying to set up a new call to a recording client. It looks like
it is doing a new failover regardless if it already has done a failover for
this failed transaction.
I don't want Kamailio to send that last INVITE when receiving the 503. How
can I configure Kamailio to disregard the last 503 (except for responding
with an ACK) and not initiate a new INVITE?
I have tried a lot of different changes to the configuration but failed to
achieve this, unfortunately. Do I need to use the dispatcher module to
achieve this?
/Mattis
280
days inactive
284
days old
6 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Henning Westerholt -
Ihor Olkhovskyi -
Mattis Lind -
Olle E. Johansson