[SR-Users] DMQ problems

Aleksandar Sosic alex.sosic at evosip.cloud
Sat Jun 30 11:12:05 CEST 2018


With a more verbose kamailio (not sure if it helps):

```3(32) DEBUG: <core> [core/udp_server.c:491]: udp_rcv_loop():
received on udp socket: (106/100/520) [[KDMQ
sip:notification_peer at 10.0.0.102:5060 SIP/2.0 0D  0A Via: SIP/2.0/UDP
10.0.0.49;branch=z9hG4bK361]]
 3(32) DEBUG: <core> [core/parser/msg_parser.c:604]: parse_msg(): SIP Request:
 3(32) DEBUG: <core> [core/parser/msg_parser.c:606]: parse_msg():
method:  <KDMQ>
 3(32) DEBUG: <core> [core/parser/msg_parser.c:608]: parse_msg():
uri:     <sip:notification_peer at 10.0.0.102:5060>
 3(32) DEBUG: <core> [core/parser/msg_parser.c:610]: parse_msg():
version: <SIP/2.0>
 3(32) DEBUG: <core> [core/parser/parse_via.c:1303]:
parse_via_param(): Found param type 232, <branch> =
<z9hG4bK3618.4ae6e325000000000000000000000000.0>; state=16
 3(32) DEBUG: <core> [core/parser/parse_via.c:2639]: parse_via(): end
of header reached, state=5
 3(32) DEBUG: <core> [core/parser/msg_parser.c:492]: parse_headers():
Via found, flags=2
 3(32) DEBUG: <core> [core/parser/msg_parser.c:494]: parse_headers():
this is the first via
 3(32) DEBUG: <core> [core/parser/parse_addr_spec.c:864]:
parse_addr_spec(): end of header reached, state=10
 3(32) DEBUG: <core> [core/parser/msg_parser.c:171]: get_hdr_field():
<To> [43]; uri=[sip:notification_peer at 10.0.0.102:5060]
 3(32) DEBUG: <core> [core/parser/msg_parser.c:172]: get_hdr_field():
to body [<sip:notification_peer at 10.0.0.102:5060>
], to tag []
 3(32) DEBUG: <core> [core/parser/msg_parser.c:152]: get_hdr_field():
cseq <CSeq>: <10> <KDMQ>
 3(32) DEBUG: <core> [core/receive.c:232]: receive_msg(): --- received
sip message - request - call-id: [3d4783ff3ccce81f-64 at 10.0.0.49] -
cseq: [10 KDMQ]
 3(32) DEBUG: <core> [core/receive.c:287]: receive_msg(): preparing to
run routing scripts...
 3(32) DEBUG: <core> [core/parser/msg_parser.c:183]: get_hdr_field():
content_length=73
 3(32) DEBUG: <core> [core/parser/msg_parser.c:89]: get_hdr_field():
found end of header
 3(32) DEBUG: <core> [core/receive.c:344]: receive_msg():
request-route executed in: 203 usec
 3(32) DEBUG: <core> [core/usr_avp.c:636]: destroy_avp_list():
destroying list (nil)
 3(32) DEBUG: <core> [core/usr_avp.c:636]: destroy_avp_list():
destroying list (nil)
 3(32) DEBUG: <core> [core/usr_avp.c:636]: destroy_avp_list():
destroying list (nil)
 3(32) DEBUG: <core> [core/usr_avp.c:636]: destroy_avp_list():
destroying list (nil)
 3(32) DEBUG: <core> [core/usr_avp.c:636]: destroy_avp_list():
destroying list (nil)
 3(32) DEBUG: <core> [core/usr_avp.c:636]: destroy_avp_list():
destroying list (nil)
 3(32) DEBUG: <core> [core/xavp.c:495]: xavp_destroy_list():
destroying xavp list (nil)
 3(32) DEBUG: <core> [core/receive.c:447]: receive_msg(): cleaning up
```
...
```
9(38) DEBUG: <core> [core/receive.c:232]: receive_msg(): --- received
sip message - request - call-id: [0eb7f0c66155bdad-46 at 10.0.0.102] -
cseq: [10 KDMQ]
 9(38) DEBUG: <core> [core/receive.c:287]: receive_msg(): preparing to
run routing scripts...
 9(38) DEBUG: <core> [core/parser/msg_parser.c:183]: get_hdr_field():
content_length=71
 9(38) DEBUG: <core> [core/parser/msg_parser.c:89]: get_hdr_field():
found end of header
 9(38) DEBUG: <core> [core/receive.c:344]: receive_msg():
request-route executed in: 102 usec
 9(38) DEBUG: <core> [core/usr_avp.c:636]: destroy_avp_list():
destroying list (nil)
 9(38) DEBUG: <core> [core/usr_avp.c:636]: destroy_avp_list():
destroying list (nil)
 9(38) DEBUG: <core> [core/usr_avp.c:636]: destroy_avp_list():
destroying list (nil)
 9(38) DEBUG: <core> [core/usr_avp.c:636]: destroy_avp_list():
destroying list (nil)
 9(38) DEBUG: <core> [core/usr_avp.c:636]: destroy_avp_list():
destroying list (nil)
 9(38) DEBUG: <core> [core/usr_avp.c:636]: destroy_avp_list():
destroying list (nil)
 9(38) DEBUG: <core> [core/xavp.c:495]: xavp_destroy_list():
destroying xavp list (nil)
 9(38) DEBUG: <core> [core/receive.c:447]: receive_msg(): cleaning up
17(46) DEBUG: tm [t_reply.c:1262]: t_should_relay_response():
->>>>>>>>> T_code=0, new_code=408
17(46) DEBUG: tm [t_reply.c:2092]: local_reply(): branch=0, save=0, winner=0
17(46) DEBUG: tm [t_reply.c:2131]: local_reply(): local transaction
completed 408/0 (totag retr: 0/1024)
17(46) DEBUG: tm [t_hooks.c:258]: run_trans_callbacks_internal(): DBG:
trans=0x7f9093424300, callback type 1024, id 0 entered
17(46) DEBUG: dmq [dmq_funcs.c:61]: dmq_tm_callback(): dmq_tm_callback start
17(46) DEBUG: dmq [notification_peer.c:586]:
notification_resp_callback_f(): notification_callback_f triggered
[0xffffffffffffffff 408 (nil)]
17(46) ERROR: dmq [notification_peer.c:596]:
notification_resp_callback_f(): deleting server sip:127.0.0.1:5060
because of failed request
17(46) ERROR: dmq [notification_peer.c:599]:
notification_resp_callback_f(): not deleting notification_peer
17(46) DEBUG: dmq [dmq_funcs.c:69]: dmq_tm_callback(): dmq_tm_callback done
```
--
Aleksandar Sosic
mail: alex.sosic at evosip.cloud
On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 8:32 AM Aleksandar Sosic
<alex.sosic at evosip.cloud> wrote:
>
> 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at evosip.cloudOn Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 6:27 PM Charles
> Chance <charles.chance at 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



More information about the sr-users mailing list