dmq_is_from_node() issue - sr-users

22 Jul 2015

Hi All,

I have an issue with the dmq_is_from_node() function, whereby it does 
not detect a node is on the bus if it has been removed from its "table" 
due to previously failed, i presume, ping requests.

I have the following snippet in my main routing block:

if(is_method("KDMQ")) {
         if (dmq_is_from_node()) {
             dmq_handle_message();
             exit;
         } else {
             xlog("L_INFO", "KDMQ message recieved from node not on our 
bus!! ($si:$sp) Dropping.");
             exit;
         }
     }

I have the following dmq module parameters enabled for dmq:

modparam("dmq", "server_address", DMQ_ADDRESS)
modparam("dmq", "notification_address",
"sip:lb.domain.com:5060")
modparam("dmq", "multi_notify", 1)
modparam("dmq", "num_workers", 4)

DMQ_ADDRESS is set to each of the addresses in the lb.domain.com for 
each local kamailio instance

lb.domain.com resolves to the following addresses:
     10.6.0.109
     10.6.0.110
     10.6.0.111

If I start up the 1st instance of kamailio and do not start the other 2 
within the default ping timout then I get the expected log message of 
dmq removing the nodes from its table, for example:

kamailio[26657]: ERROR: dmq [notification_peer.c:588]: 
notification_resp_callback_f(): deleting server sip:10.6.0.111:5060 
because of failed request
kamailio[26657]: ERROR: dmq [notification_peer.c:588]: 
notification_resp_callback_f(): deleting server sip:10.6.0.110:5060 
because of failed request

However, if I then start one, or both, of the other nodes, then the KDMQ 
requests are dropped due to my snippet above, I presume, because 
dmq_is_from_node() checks its "active" table. See messages below as an 
example of the above snippet in action:

kamailio[26656]: INFO: <script>: KDMQ message recieved from node not on 
our bus!! (10.6.0.110:5060) Dropping.
kamailio[26656]: INFO: <script>: KDMQ message recieved from node not on 
our bus!! (10.6.0.111:5060) Dropping.

Is this expected behaviour from the dmq_is_from_node() function? I would 
have expected it to always check the addresses resolved in the 
notification address, or am I using this function in a manner not intended.

Any suggestions/tips would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks