[SR-Users] Kamailio propagates 180 and 200 OK OUT OF ORDER

Olle E. Johansson oej at edvina.net
Thu Apr 9 09:27:19 CEST 2020 

If you think about it, if the 200 OK is so close to the 180 it doesn’t really matter from a signalling standpoint
if the 180 comes first or if it arrives after the 200 OK. It’s the 200 OK that is important. If the 180 comes after, it’s
simply ignored and the dialog is established successfully.

The 1xx is seldom significant (unless you have PRACK but that’s another story).

Or do you really have a situation where the 180 is critical?

/O

> On 8 Apr 2020, at 18:01, Steve Davies <steve-lists-srusers at connection-telecom.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Luis,
> 
> Kamailio architecture isn't going to change I'm sure.  There is no central orchestrator - each worker process just grabs messages as fast as it can.  If your processing is slow for some and fast for others then they can get out of order I reckon.  180s are really neither here nor there if there's a 200 OK right behind it.
> 
> Perhaps a proxy like Drachtio would work better for you?
> 
> Steve
> 
> 
> On Wed, 8 Apr 2020 at 17:44, Luis Rojas G. <luis.rojas at sixbell.com <mailto:luis.rojas at sixbell.com>> wrote:
> Hello, Henning,
> 
> I am worried about this scenario, because it's a symptom of what may happen in other cases. For instance, I've seen that this operator usually sends re-invites immediate after sending ACK.   This may create race conditions like 3.1.5 of RFC5407
> 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5407#page-22 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5407#page-22>
> 
> I'd understand that one happens because of packet loss, as it's in UDP's nature, but in this case it would be artificially created by Kamailio. if there was no problem at network level (packet loss, packets following different path on the network and arriving out of order), why Kamailio creates it? 
> 
> I'd expect that the shared memory is used precisely for this. If an instance of kamailio receives a 200 OK, it could check on the shm and say "hey, another instance is processing a 180 for this call. Let's wait for it to finish" (*). I know there could still be a problem, the instance processing the 180 undergoes a context switch just after it receives the message, but before writing to shm, but it would greatly reduce the chance.
> 
> In our applications we use a SIP stack that always sends messages to the application in the same order it receives them, even though is multi-threaded and messages from the network are received by different threads. So, they really syncronize between them. Why Kamailio instances don't?
> 
> I am evaluating kamailio to use it as a dispatcher to balance load against our several Application Servers, to present to the operator just a couple of entrance points to our platform (they don't want to establish connections to each one of our servers). This operator is very difficult to deal with. I am sure they will complain something like "why are you sending messages out of order? Fix that". The operator will be able to see traces and check that messages entered the Kamailio nodes in order and left out of order. They will not accept it.
> 
> (*) Not really "wait", as it would introduce a delay in processing all messages. it should be like putting it on a queue, continue processing other messages, and go back to the queue later.
> 
> Well, thanks for your answer.
> 
> Luis
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 4/8/20 3:01 AM, Henning Westerholt wrote:
>> Hello Luis,
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> as the 1xx responses are usually send unreliable (unless you use PRACK), you should not make any assumption on the order or even the arrival of this messages. It can also happens on a network level, if send by UDP.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Can you elaborate why you think this re-ordering is a problem for you?
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> One idea to enforce some ordering would be to use the dialog module in combination with reply routes and the textops(x)  module.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> About the shared memory question – Kamailio implement its own memory manager (private memory and shared memory pool).
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Henning
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> --
>> 
>> Henning Westerholt – https://skalatan.de/blog/ <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fskalatan.de%2Fblog%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7C9909a729fd8a426f81aa08d7db8aab0a%7Cab4a33c2b5614f798601bc921698ad08%7C0%7C1%7C637219260993836600&sdata=ZLmPqvbWKbsXY49s870sElN2I0uIn0DtDQSqJOoxr6I%3D&reserved=0>
>> Kamailio services – https://gilawa.com <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgilawa.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7C9909a729fd8a426f81aa08d7db8aab0a%7Cab4a33c2b5614f798601bc921698ad08%7C0%7C1%7C637219260993836600&sdata=Hdgzfwgu80wiwJBOjh9N70hvXSvWjt8abuKFjVRsavo%3D&reserved=0>
>>  
>> 
>> From: sr-users <sr-users-bounces at lists.kamailio.org> <mailto:sr-users-bounces at lists.kamailio.org> On Behalf Of Luis Rojas G.
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 10:43 PM
>> To: sr-users at lists.kamailio.org <mailto:sr-users at lists.kamailio.org>
>> Subject: [SR-Users] Kamailio propagates 180 and 200 OK OUT OF ORDER
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Good day,
>> 
>> I am testing the dispatcher module, using Kamailio as stateless proxy. I have a pool of UAC (scripts in SIPP) and a pool of UAS (also scripts in SIPP) for the destinations. Kamailio version is kamailio-5.3.3-4.1.x86_64.
>> 
>> Problem I have is, if UAS responds 180 and 200 OK to Invite immediately, sometimes they are propagated out of order. 200 OK before 180, like this :
>> 
>> <image001.png>
>> 
>> UAS is 172.30.4.195:5061 <http://172.30.4.195:5061/>. UAC is 172.30.4.195:5080 <http://172.30.4.195:5080/>. Kamailio is 192.168.253.4:5070 <http://192.168.253.4:5070/>
>> Difference between 180 and 200 is just about 50 microseconds.
>> 
>> My guess is that both messages are received by different instances of Kamailio, and then because of context switches, even though the 180 is received before, that process ends after the processing of 200. However, I had the idea that in order to avoid these problems the kamailio processes synchronized with each other using a shared memory. I tried using stateful proxy and I obtained the same result.
>> 
>> By the way, anyone has any idea about how Kamailio's share memory is implemented? It clearly does not use the typical system calls shmget(), shmat(), because they are not shown by ipcs command.
>> 
>> Before posting here I googled, but I couldn't find anything related to this. I can't believe I am the only one who ever had this problem, so I guess I am doing something wrong...
>> 
>> Please, any help. I'm really stuck on this.
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> -- 
> 
> -- 
> Luis Rojas
> Software Architect
> Sixbell
> Los Leones 1200
> Providencia
> Santiago, Chile
> Phone: (+56-2) 22001288
> mailto:luis.rojas at sixbell.com <mailto:luis.rojas at sixbell.com>
> http://www.sixbell.com <http://www.sixbell.com/>
> _______________________________________________
> Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
> sr-users at lists.kamailio.org <mailto:sr-users at lists.kamailio.org>
> https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users <https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users>
> _______________________________________________
> Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
> sr-users at lists.kamailio.org
> https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kamailio.org/pipermail/sr-users/attachments/20200409/43002b2a/attachment.html>

More information about the sr-users mailing list