12 Jan
2009
12 Jan
'09
7:40 p.m.
I need some hints as to what can be going on;
Running: openser-1.2.2-tls
Mobile 1 à PSTN à Provider SER à Local SER à Asterisk (Callforward) à Provider SER à PSTN
à Mobile 2
When Mobile 2 hangs up, Mobile 1 does not get disconnected but hangs with dead air.
Provider SER: Is load balanced using standards DNS round robin with one CNAME pointing to
two IP's
Our BYE goes to the wrong IP even though we use;
modparam( "rr", "enable_full_lr", 1 )
...
fix_nated_contact();
force_rport();
if ( ! search( "^Content-Length:\ 0" ) ) {
fix_nated_sdp( "3" );
};
t_on_reply( "1" );
record_route();
if ( loose_route() ) {
route( 1 );
break;
};
I have tested with check_via = yes to no avail.
Do any of you have any idea what might be causing this?
I know the provided information is sparse but thought I'd try the short descriptions
of the problem first, if it's a known miss config.
Many Regards
Danny Froberg
12 Jan
12 Jan
10:13 p.m.
On Monday 12 January 2009 15:40:03 Danny Fröberg wrote:
Provider SER: Is load balanced using standards DNS
round robin with one
This is illegal and/or impossible. A CNAME must point to
exactly _one_
hostname, not multiple, and not IP addresses.
CNAME pointing to two IP's Our BYE goes to the
wrong IP even though we use;
What's in the route-set? The IP address or the
host/domain name of the
provider?
--
Alex Hermann
13 Jan
13 Jan
2:23 a.m.
Alex,
Sorry about that, Provider SER uses; one *hostname* pointing to two IP's
Route set looks like;
route[ 1 ] {
if ( ! t_relay() ) {
sl_reply_error();
};
}
onreply_route[ 1 ] {
fix_nated_contact();
force_rport();
if ( ! search( "^Content-Length:\ 0" ) ) {
fix_nated_sdp( "3" );
};
}
-----Original Message-----
On Monday 12 January 2009 15:40:03 Danny Fröberg wrote:
Provider SER: Is load balanced using standards DNS
round robin with one
This is illegal and/or impossible. A CNAME must point to
exactly _one_
hostname, not multiple, and not IP addresses.
CNAME pointing to two IP's Our BYE goes to the
wrong IP even though we use;
What's in the route-set? The IP address or the
host/domain name of the
provider?
--
Alex Hermann
_______________________________________________
Kamailio (OpenSER) - Users mailing list
Users(a)lists.kamailio.org
http://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
2:37 a.m.
El Lunes, 12 de Enero de 2009, Danny Fröberg escribió:
onreply_route[ 1 ] {
fix_nated_contact();
force_rport();
if ( ! search( "^Content-Length:\ 0" ) ) {
fix_nated_sdp( "3" );
};
}
Hi, don't use:
search( "^Content-Length:\ 0" )
It requires searching all the message looking for a header. And it will not
match the abbrebiated mode of Content-Length header:
l: 0
Use the pseudovariable $cl:
http://kamailio.org/dokuwiki/doku.php/pseudovariables:devel#content-length
--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
2:51 a.m.
Thank you for the suggestion I'll take a look at that.
/Danny
-----Original Message-----
From: users-bounces(a)lists.kamailio.org [mailto:users-bounces@lists.kamailio.org] On Behalf
Of Iñaki Baz Castillo
Sent: den 12 januari 2009 22:37
To: users(a)lists.kamailio.org
Subject: Re: [Kamailio-Users] BYE to the wrong IP
El Lunes, 12 de Enero de 2009, Danny Fröberg escribió:
onreply_route[ 1 ] {
fix_nated_contact();
force_rport();
if ( ! search( "^Content-Length:\ 0" ) ) {
fix_nated_sdp( "3" );
};
}
Hi, don't use:
search( "^Content-Length:\ 0" )
It requires searching all the message looking for a header. And it will not
match the abbrebiated mode of Content-Length header:
l: 0
Use the pseudovariable $cl:
http://kamailio.org/dokuwiki/doku.php/pseudovariables:devel#content-length
--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
_______________________________________________
Kamailio (OpenSER) - Users mailing list
Users(a)lists.kamailio.org
http://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
http://lists.openser-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
16 Jan
16 Jan
2 a.m.
Did anyone have any ideas on this issue?
I'm quite stumped....
/Danny
-----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
Från: users-bounces(a)lists.kamailio.org [mailto:users-
bounces(a)lists.kamailio.org] För Alex Hermann
Skickat: den 12 januari 2009 18:14
Till: users(a)lists.kamailio.org
Ämne: Re: [Kamailio-Users] BYE to the wrong IP
On Monday 12 January 2009 15:40:03 Danny Fröberg wrote:
Provider SER: Is load balanced using standards
DNS round robin with one
This is illegal and/or impossible. A CNAME must point to
exactly _one_
hostname, not multiple, and not IP addresses.
CNAME pointing to two IP's Our BYE goes to
the wrong IP even though we use;
What's in the route-set? The IP address or the
host/domain name of the
provider?
--
Alex Hermann
_______________________________________________
Kamailio (OpenSER) - Users mailing list
Users(a)lists.kamailio.org
http://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users 
19 Jan
19 Jan
3:24 p.m.
Will help if you can grab and paste here the SIP trace passing your sip
server.
Route and contact headers - the ones that decide the routing of bye -
should use ip addresses.
Cheers,
Daniel
On 01/15/2009 11:00 PM, Danny Fröberg wrote:
Did anyone have any ideas on this issue?
I'm quite stumped....
/Danny
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
http://www.asipto.com
-----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
Från: users-bounces(a)lists.kamailio.org [mailto:users-
bounces(a)lists.kamailio.org] För Alex Hermann
Skickat: den 12 januari 2009 18:14
Till: users(a)lists.kamailio.org
Ämne: Re: [Kamailio-Users] BYE to the wrong IP
On Monday 12 January 2009 15:40:03 Danny Fröberg wrote:
_______________________________________________
Kamailio (OpenSER) - Users mailing list
Users(a)lists.kamailio.org
http://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
http://lists.openser-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
Provider SER: Is load balanced using standards
DNS round robin with one
This is illegal and/or impossible. A CNAME must point to exactly _one_
hostname, not multiple, and not IP addresses.
CNAME pointing to two IP's Our BYE goes to
the wrong IP even though we use;
What's in the route-set? The IP address or the host/domain name of the
provider?
--
Alex Hermann
_______________________________________________
Kamailio (OpenSER) - Users mailing list
Users(a)lists.kamailio.org
http://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
3:30 p.m.
On Monday 19 January 2009, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
Route and contact headers - the ones that decide the
routing of bye -
should use ip addresses.
A hostname or domain name (SRV) is perfectly valid in
route headers. It's one
of the ways to get proxy failover working. (Too bad some UA's are too stupid
to handle this properly).
--
Met vriendelijke groet,
Alex Hermann
SpeakUp
T: 088-SPEAKUP (088-7732587)
F: 088-7732588
3:40 p.m.
On 01/19/2009 12:30 PM, Alex Hermann wrote:
On Monday 19 January 2009, Daniel-Constantin Mierla
wrote:
You are right. Proper DNS handling for server location and failover is
still missing in most of the sip implementations. And if they don't do
it, they should use IP in routing headers.
Cheers,
Daniel
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
http://www.asipto.com
Route and contact headers - the ones that decide
the routing of bye -
should use ip addresses.
A hostname or domain name (SRV) is perfectly valid in route headers. It's
one
of the ways to get proxy failover working. (Too bad some UA's are too stupid
to handle this properly).
5:53 p.m.
New subject: [Kamailio-Users] parameter <db_failuretable> not found in module <carrierroute>
Hi list,
I am trying to implement the carrierroute module to kamailio 1.4.1-notls.
I added the failure routes to the carrierfailureroute table and on the
kamailio.cfg file I add the following modparam, that I thought it would be
necessary, but when I start again Kamailio, it doesn't start.
I got the following error:
Jan 19 14:05:07 localhost kamailio: ERROR:core:set_mod_param_regex:
parameter <db_failuretable> not found in module <carrierroute>
Jan 19 14:05:07 localhost kamailio: CRITICAL:core:yyerror: parse error in
config file, line 125, column 20-21: Can't set module parameter
Jan 19 14:05:07 localhost kamailio: ERROR:core:main: bad config file (1
errors)
Here are the modparam code that I use on my kamailio.cfg file,
105 # ---- carrierroute params -----
106 modparam("carrierroute", "db_url",
"mysql://openserro:openserro@localhost/openser")
107 modparam("carrierroute", "config_source", "db")
#"file" or "db"
108
109 ##### #Added for testing carrierroute ####
110 modparam("carrierroute", "db_table",
"carrierroute")
111 modparam("carrierroute", "id_column", "id")
112 modparam("carrierroute", "carrier_column",
"carrier")
113 modparam("carrierroute", "scan_prefix_column",
"scan_prefix")
114 modparam("carrierroute", "domain_column", "domain")
115 #modparam("carrierroute", "flags_column", "flags")
116 #modparam("carrierroute", "mask_column", "mask")
117 modparam("carrierroute", "prob_column", "prob")
118 modparam("carrierroute", "rewrite_host_column",
"rewrite_host")
119 #modparam("carrierroute", "strip_column", "strip")
120 modparam("carrierroute", "carrier_table",
"route_tree")
121 modparam("carrierroute", "carrier_id_col", "id")
122 modparam("carrierroute", "carrier_name_col",
"carrier")
123 modparam("carrierroute", "config_file",
"/etc/kamailio/carrierroute.conf")
124 modparam("carrierroute", "default_tree", "default")
125 modparam("carrierroute", "db_failuretable",
"carrierfailureroute")
126 modparam("carrierroute", "failure_id_column", "id")
127 modparam("carrierroute", "failure_carrier_column",
"carrier")
128 modparam("carrierroute", "fetch_rows", 3000)
Do you have any suggestions about where the problem is?
Thanks in advance,
Juan.-
6:06 p.m.
New subject: [Kamailio-Users] parameter <db_failuretable> not found in module <carrierroute>
On Monday 19 January 2009, Juan Asencio wrote:
I am trying to implement the carrierroute module to
kamailio 1.4.1-notls.
I added the failure routes to the carrierfailureroute table and on the
kamailio.cfg file I add the following modparam, that I thought it would be
necessary, but when I start again Kamailio, it doesn't start.
I got the following error:
Jan 19 14:05:07 localhost kamailio: ERROR:core:set_mod_param_regex:
parameter <db_failuretable> not found in module <carrierroute>
Jan 19 14:05:07 localhost kamailio: CRITICAL:core:yyerror: parse error in
config file, line 125, column 20-21: Can't set module parameter
Jan 19 14:05:07 localhost kamailio: ERROR:core:main: bad config file (1
errors)
Hi Juan,
there is apparently a error in the docs, this table parameter is called
"db_failure_table". I'll fix this in the documentation.
Cheers,
Henning
6:16 p.m.
New subject: [Kamailio-Users] parameter <db_failuretable> not found in module <carrierroute>
Hi Henning,
Thanks for the tip, I change the name of the table to "db_failure_table"
in that modparam and now the Kamailio is able to start again.
Cheers,
Juan.-
On Monday 19 January 2009, Juan Asencio wrote:
I am trying to implement the carrierroute module
to kamailio
1.4.1-notls.
I added the failure routes to the carrierfailureroute table and on the
kamailio.cfg file I add the following modparam, that I thought it would
be
necessary, but when I start again Kamailio, it doesn't start.
I got the following error:
Jan 19 14:05:07 localhost kamailio: ERROR:core:set_mod_param_regex:
parameter <db_failuretable> not found in module <carrierroute>
Jan 19 14:05:07 localhost kamailio: CRITICAL:core:yyerror: parse error
in
config file, line 125, column 20-21: Can't set module parameter
Jan 19 14:05:07 localhost kamailio: ERROR:core:main: bad config file (1
errors)
Hi Juan,
there is apparently a error in the docs, this table parameter is called
"db_failure_table". I'll fix this in the documentation.
Cheers,
Henning
7:47 p.m.
New subject: [Kamailio-Users] carrierroute and scan_prefix value
Hi Henning,
Is it possible to choose different domains using the parameter
"scan_prefix" on the "carrierroute" table?
For example: 1 have one carrier with two different domains pointing each
one of them to a different host.
If the user makes a call to a number starting with 234 the call goes to
domain 1 or if the user call to a number 567 the call goes to domain 2.
I have been trying with the example 1.45. Configuration example - Routing
to user tree. But since I specify a domain on this part of the code:
# just an example domain
$avp(s:domain)="start";
The call only goes through that domain "start" when it matches the
"scan_prefix". If the "scan_prefix" doesn't match it would keep
trying.
But it doesn't try the other domain.
How can I achieve that, if is possible at all?
Cheers,
Juan.-
20 Jan
20 Jan
4:11 p.m.
New subject: [Kamailio-Users] carrierroute and scan_prefix value
On Monday 19 January 2009, Juan Asencio wrote:
Is it possible to choose different domains using the
parameter
"scan_prefix" on the "carrierroute" table?
For example: 1 have one carrier with two different domains pointing each
one of them to a different host.
If the user makes a call to a number starting with 234 the call goes to
domain 1 or if the user call to a number 567 the call goes to domain 2.
I have been trying with the example 1.45. Configuration example - Routing
to user tree. But since I specify a domain on this part of the code:
# just an example domain
$avp(s:domain)="start";
The call only goes through that domain "start" when it matches the
"scan_prefix". If the "scan_prefix" doesn't match it would keep
trying.
But it doesn't try the other domain.
How can I achieve that, if is possible at all?
Hi Juan,
i'm not sure if i completely understand your question. You've one carrier with
several domains, each of them pointing to different hosts.
carrier default, domains: 0, 1
0 -> host1
1 -> host2
'234' -> 1 -> host1, '567' -> 2 -> host2
This can be achieved with only one domain.
default: 0
0 '234' -> host1
0 '567' -> host2
Or do you've some more requirements that needs a second domain?
Cheers,
Henning
21 Jan
21 Jan
6:39 p.m.
New subject: [Kamailio-Users] carrierroute and scan_prefix value
Hi Henning and list, here is a description of the configuration that Im
trying to test with carrierroute:
I have 4 groups of customers calling to 6 different destinations. Each
customerGroup has specific rules about the destinations that are allowed
to call.
For ex.
CustomerGroup 1 can call to S-fix, S-mob, N-fix and DK-fix, but not to
N-mob or DK-mob
CustomerGroup 2 can call to N-fix, N-mob, S-fix and DK-fix, but not to
S-mob or DK-mob
CustomerGroup 3 can call to DK-fix, DK-mob, S-fix and N-fix, but not to
S-mob or N-mob
CustomerGroup 4 can call to all destinations.
So, in order to apply the different rules to each customerGroup, I could
assign to each customerGroup a Carrier on the subscriber table, and each
carrier would have its rules about where is allowed to call using
scan_prefix on the carrierroute table.
But then I will need to have almost the same host information for every
carrier, but with the exceptions mentioned above. My point is that it
would be a lot of information that is repeated, is this really necessary?
It is anyway to avoid repeating all this rewrite_host and scan_prefix
information? Because in this example is just 6 rewrite_hosts that Im
calling again and again on the different carriers, but in my
implementation it would be a lot more of Interconnect companies that I
need to add. Also, the same scan_prefix, would be called again for each
carrier.
As well, I see that I could put all hosts under 1 domain, but then what it
is the point of having different domains?
Am I trying to do with carrierroute something that the module was not
build for?
I would appreciate your advice about this implementation.
Configuration to test
host1(S-fix)
Interconnect1(S)<
Domain1 host2(S-mob)
host3(N-fix)
CustomerGroup1 - Carrier1 - Interconnect2(N)<
Domain2 ---- o ----
Host5(DK-fix)
Interconnect3(DK)<
Domain3 ---- o ----
-------------------------------------------------------------
Host1(S-fix)
Interconnect1(S)<
Domain1 ---- o ----
host3(N-fix)
CustomerGroup2 - Carrier2 - Interconnect2(N)<
Domain2 host4(N-mob)
Host5(DK-fix)
Interconnect3(DK)<
Domain3 ---- o ----
-------------------------------------------------------------
Host1(S-fix)
Interconnect1(S)<
Domain1 ---- o ----
host3(N-fix)
CustomerGroup3 - Carrier3 - Interconnect2(N)<
Domain2 ---- o ----
Host5(DK-fix)
Interconnect3(DK)<
Domain3 Host6(DK-mob)
-------------------------------------------------------------
Host1(S-fix)
Interconnect1(S)<
Domain1 Host2(S-mob)
host3(N-fix)
CustomerGroup4 - Carrier4 - Interconnect2(N)<
Domain2 host4(N-mob)
Host5(DK-fix)
Interconnect3(DK)<
Domain3 Host6(S-mob)
-------------------------------------------------------------
+----+---------+--------+-------------+-------+------+---------------+
| id | carrier | domain | scan_prefix | flags | prob | rewrite_host |
+----+---------+--------+-------------+-------+------+---------------+
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 462 | 0 | 1 | host1.s-fix |
| 2 | 1 | 1 | 465 | 0 | 1 | host2.s-mob |
| 3 | 1 | 2 | 472 | 0 | 1 | host3.n-fix |
| 4 | 1 | 2 | 473 | 0 | 1 | host3.n-fix |
| 5 | 1 | 2 | 474 | 0 | 1 | host3.n-fix |
| 6 | 1 | 3 | 452 | 0 | 1 | host5.dk-fix |
| 7 | 1 | 3 | 453 | 0 | 1 | host5.dk-fix |
| 8 | 1 | 3 | 454 | 0 | 1 | host5.dk-fix |
| 9 | 2 | 1 | 462 | 0 | 1 | host1.s-fix |
| 10 | 2 | 2 | 472 | 0 | 1 | host3.n-fix |
| 11 | 2 | 2 | 475 | 0 | 1 | host4.n-mob |
| 12 | 2 | 3 | 452 | 0 | 1 | host5.dk-fix |
| 13 | 3 | 1 | 462 | 0 | 1 | host1.s-fix |
+----+---------+--------+-------------+-------+------+---------------+
and so on...
Cheers,
Juan.-
On Monday 19 January 2009, Juan Asencio wrote:
Is it possible to choose different domains using
the parameter
"scan_prefix" on the "carrierroute" table?
For example: 1 have one carrier with two different domains pointing each
one of them to a different host.
If the user makes a call to a number starting with 234 the call goes to
domain 1 or if the user call to a number 567 the call goes to domain 2.
I have been trying with the example 1.45. Configuration example -
Routing
to user tree. But since I specify a domain on this part of the code:
# just an example domain
$avp(s:domain)="start";
The call only goes through that domain "start" when it matches the
"scan_prefix". If the "scan_prefix" doesn't match it would keep
trying.
But it doesn't try the other domain.
How can I achieve that, if is possible at all?
Hi Juan,
i'm not sure if i completely understand your question. You've one carrier
with
several domains, each of them pointing to different hosts.
carrier default, domains: 0, 1
0 -> host1
1 -> host2
'234' -> 1 -> host1, '567' -> 2 -> host2
This can be achieved with only one domain.
default: 0
0 '234' -> host1
0 '567' -> host2
Or do you've some more requirements that needs a second domain?
Cheers,
Henning
22 Jan
22 Jan
4:32 p.m.
New subject: [Kamailio-Users] carrierroute and scan_prefix value
On Wednesday 21 January 2009, Juan Asencio wrote:
Hi Henning and list, here is a description of the
configuration that Im
trying to test with carrierroute:
I have 4 groups of customers calling to 6 different destinations. Each
customerGroup has specific rules about the destinations that are allowed
to call.
For ex.
CustomerGroup 1 can call to S-fix, S-mob, N-fix and DK-fix, but not to
N-mob or DK-mob
CustomerGroup 2 can call to N-fix, N-mob, S-fix and DK-fix, but not to
S-mob or DK-mob
CustomerGroup 3 can call to DK-fix, DK-mob, S-fix and N-fix, but not to
S-mob or N-mob
CustomerGroup 4 can call to all destinations.
Hi Juan,
ok, understand. Additional to least cost routing you use cr to blacklist
certain destinations depending on the user group.
So, in order to apply the different rules to each
customerGroup, I could
assign to each customerGroup a Carrier on the subscriber table, and each
carrier would have its rules about where is allowed to call using
scan_prefix on the carrierroute table.
But then I will need to have almost the same host information for every
carrier, but with the exceptions mentioned above. My point is that it
would be a lot of information that is repeated, is this really necessary?
Duplicating this routing rules would be the easiest solution. But you could
probably implement something like this with the flags/ mask functionality,
present in cr from 1.4.x. It can match routing rules against message flags
you set in the script.
It is anyway to avoid repeating all this rewrite_host
and scan_prefix
information? Because in this example is just 6 rewrite_hosts that Im
calling again and again on the different carriers, but in my
implementation it would be a lot more of Interconnect companies that I
need to add. Also, the same scan_prefix, would be called again for each
carrier.
In the upcoming 1.5.0 release we removed some of the duplication, additional
to the carriers also the domain names are now read from seperate tables on
startup. We thought also a few times about moving the rewrite_host to a
seperate table, but came not to a final conclusion about this if it makes
really sense. After all, memory and disk storage are way more cheaper then
developer brains. ;-) And so far even with larger installation (several 100k
routes) this was not an issue.
Additional, if you enter individual numbers as scan_prefix (e.g. fraud, QS
issues with certain GWs..), you're matching table would be get quite large.
As well, I see that I could put all hosts under 1
domain, but then what it
is the point of having different domains?
You can use it for failure routing, for example. Lets say, domain 1 is your
first try, use the cheapest route. It fails, you go to domain 2, which is
more expensive. If it fails again, you try again the first route, or a third
one. Or you've a certain domain that diverts the call to a announcement box,
for certain response classes..
Am I trying to do with carrierroute something that
the module was not
build for?
No, it was created for something like this.
+----+---------+--------+-------------+-------+------+---------------+
| id | carrier | domain | scan_prefix | flags | prob | rewrite_host |
+----+---------+--------+-------------+-------+------+---------------+
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 462 | 0 | 1 | host1.s-fix |
| 2 | 1 | 1 | 465 | 0 | 1 | host2.s-mob |
| 3 | 1 | 2 | 472 | 0 | 1 | host3.n-fix |
| 4 | 1 | 2 | 473 | 0 | 1 | host3.n-fix |
| 5 | 1 | 2 | 474 | 0 | 1 | host3.n-fix |
| 6 | 1 | 3 | 452 | 0 | 1 | host5.dk-fix |
| 7 | 1 | 3 | 453 | 0 | 1 | host5.dk-fix |
| 8 | 1 | 3 | 454 | 0 | 1 | host5.dk-fix |
| 9 | 2 | 1 | 462 | 0 | 1 | host1.s-fix |
| 10 | 2 | 2 | 472 | 0 | 1 | host3.n-fix |
| 11 | 2 | 2 | 475 | 0 | 1 | host4.n-mob |
| 12 | 2 | 3 | 452 | 0 | 1 | host5.dk-fix |
| 13 | 3 | 1 | 462 | 0 | 1 | host1.s-fix |
+----+---------+--------+-------------+-------+------+---------------+
If you just want to blacklist certain destinations you can also do it another
way:
+----+---------+--------+-------------+-------+------+---------------+
| id | carrier | domain | scan_prefix | flags | prob | rewrite_host |
+----+---------+--------+-------------+-------+------+---------------+
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 47 | 0 | 1 | host3.n-fix |
| 2 | 1 | 1 | 475 | 0 | 1 | |
+----+---------+--------+-------------+-------+------+---------------+
Just combine the rules to host3.n (prefix 472, 473, 474), and explicitly
blacklist the mobile you don't want for this users. Normally there a quite a
lot of optimization possibilities like this, you could use some custom
scripts to generate and optimize the routing rules.
Cheers,
Henning
5583
days inactive
5593
days old
15 comments
6 participants
participants (6)
-
Alex Hermann -
Daniel-Constantin Mierla -
Danny Fröberg -
Henning Westerholt -
Iñaki Baz Castillo -
Juan Asencio