date:20200123

Re: [SR-Users] Ideas to reject a call due to RTPEngine failure when handling the 200Ok

2020-01-23 Thread Patrick Wakano

I know that, and if that happens for the initial INIVITE I can properly
fail the call with a 50X.
However when I am already dealing with the 200Ok, the options are very
limited and it is not clear to me what is the correct approach

On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 at 09:16, Alex Balashov 
wrote:

> If the RTPEngine fails to answer the offer or answer command, the SDP
> will be left unmodified.
>
> But of course, that will not result in a proper media path.
>
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 09:01:25AM +1100, Patrick Wakano wrote:
>
> > Hello list,
> > Hope you all doing well!
> >
> > I have a setup of Kamailio + RTPEngine (so no B2BUA), and I've come to a
> > situation which I can't really figure out the best decision.
> > The case is a late SDP negotiation that the 200Ok with the SDP offer
> fails
> > to engage the RTPEngine (for example no RTPEngine available). Also, the
> > same problem can happen with a normal SDP negotiation, in case the INVITE
> > goes through normally but then when engaging the SDP answer for the
> 200Ok,
> > the RTPengine answer request fails for any reason...
> > In these cases, I can't generate a proper SDP for the 200OOk so the call
> > will connect normally, but the media path will be broken...
> > So for such cases, I am thinking it is reasonable to fail the call.
> > However, failing a call during the 200Ok stage is tricky, at this point
> we
> > can't convert the 200Ok to a 50X. I tried and Kamailio doesn't allow and
> > also RFC wise this is a no no for a SIP proxy
> > I could completely remove the SDP body and forward the 200Ok. This will
> > force a failed SDP negotiation and leave it for the endpoints the task to
> > terminate the call. Is that acceptable? Has anyone faced such situation?
> > Any idea is much appreciated!
> >
> > Kind regards,
> > Patrick Wakano
>
> > ___
> > Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
> > sr-users@lists.kamailio.org
> > https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
>
>
> --
> Alex Balashov | Principal | Evariste Systems LLC
>
> Tel: +1-706-510-6800 / +1-800-250-5920 (toll-free)
> Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/, http://www.csrpswitch.com/
>
> ___
> Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
> sr-users@lists.kamailio.org
> https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
>
___
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users@lists.kamailio.org
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users

Re: [SR-Users] Ideas to reject a call due to RTPEngine failure when handling the 200Ok

2020-01-23 Thread Alex Balashov

If the RTPEngine fails to answer the offer or answer command, the SDP
will be left unmodified. 

But of course, that will not result in a proper media path.

On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 09:01:25AM +1100, Patrick Wakano wrote:

> Hello list,
> Hope you all doing well!
> 
> I have a setup of Kamailio + RTPEngine (so no B2BUA), and I've come to a
> situation which I can't really figure out the best decision.
> The case is a late SDP negotiation that the 200Ok with the SDP offer fails
> to engage the RTPEngine (for example no RTPEngine available). Also, the
> same problem can happen with a normal SDP negotiation, in case the INVITE
> goes through normally but then when engaging the SDP answer for the 200Ok,
> the RTPengine answer request fails for any reason...
> In these cases, I can't generate a proper SDP for the 200OOk so the call
> will connect normally, but the media path will be broken...
> So for such cases, I am thinking it is reasonable to fail the call.
> However, failing a call during the 200Ok stage is tricky, at this point we
> can't convert the 200Ok to a 50X. I tried and Kamailio doesn't allow and
> also RFC wise this is a no no for a SIP proxy
> I could completely remove the SDP body and forward the 200Ok. This will
> force a failed SDP negotiation and leave it for the endpoints the task to
> terminate the call. Is that acceptable? Has anyone faced such situation?
> Any idea is much appreciated!
> 
> Kind regards,
> Patrick Wakano

> ___
> Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
> sr-users@lists.kamailio.org
> https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users


-- 
Alex Balashov | Principal | Evariste Systems LLC

Tel: +1-706-510-6800 / +1-800-250-5920 (toll-free) 
Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/, http://www.csrpswitch.com/

___
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users@lists.kamailio.org
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users

[SR-Users] Ideas to reject a call due to RTPEngine failure when handling the 200Ok

2020-01-23 Thread Patrick Wakano

Hello list,
Hope you all doing well!

I have a setup of Kamailio + RTPEngine (so no B2BUA), and I've come to a
situation which I can't really figure out the best decision.
The case is a late SDP negotiation that the 200Ok with the SDP offer fails
to engage the RTPEngine (for example no RTPEngine available). Also, the
same problem can happen with a normal SDP negotiation, in case the INVITE
goes through normally but then when engaging the SDP answer for the 200Ok,
the RTPengine answer request fails for any reason...
In these cases, I can't generate a proper SDP for the 200OOk so the call
will connect normally, but the media path will be broken...
So for such cases, I am thinking it is reasonable to fail the call.
However, failing a call during the 200Ok stage is tricky, at this point we
can't convert the 200Ok to a 50X. I tried and Kamailio doesn't allow and
also RFC wise this is a no no for a SIP proxy
I could completely remove the SDP body and forward the 200Ok. This will
force a failed SDP negotiation and leave it for the endpoints the task to
terminate the call. Is that acceptable? Has anyone faced such situation?
Any idea is much appreciated!

Kind regards,
Patrick Wakano
___
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users@lists.kamailio.org
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users

Re: [SR-Users] uac_replace_from and uac_auth fails to authenticate.

2020-01-23 Thread Kjeld Flarup


Thanks for the suggestions.

Much to my surprise just setting $fu did the trick.


 Med Liberalistiske Hilsner --
   Civilingeniør, Kjeld Flarup - Mit sind er mere åbent end min tegnebog
   Sofienlundvej 6B, 7560 Hjerm, Tlf: 40 29 41 49
   Den ikke akademiske hjemmeside for liberalismen - www.liberalismen.dk

On 1/20/20 4:27 AM, Joel Serrano wrote:
Have you tried setting $fU/$fd directly in failure_route before 
uac_auth()?



On Sun, Jan 19, 2020 at 14:35 Kjeld Flarup 
mailto:kjeld.fla...@liberalismen.dk>> 
wrote:


Thanks for confirming.

As there seems to be no way to correct the From header in
failure_dialog, then the From header has to be modified before I
receive
the call then. Which could be done by cascading with a Cascading
Kamailio instance.


 Med Liberalistiske Hilsner --
    Civilingeniør, Kjeld Flarup - Mit sind er mere åbent end min
tegnebog
Sofienlundvej 6B, 7560 Hjerm

,
Tlf: 40 29 41 49
    Den ikke akademiske hjemmeside for liberalismen -
www.liberalismen.dk 

On 1/19/20 11:22 PM, Alex Balashov wrote:
> In non-REGISTER requests, the From URI is the identity being
asserted,
> and supported by the authentication credentials.
>
> If you have control over the upstream Kamailio server, you can
tinker
> with authentication options which enforce equivalence between the
> authentication username/realm and the From URI user/domain --
> specifically, by turning off this enforcement.
>
> If you don't, then a modified From value will indeed be a problem
> insofar as it may deviate from the authentication credentials.
>
> -- Alex
>
> On Sun, Jan 19, 2020 at 11:19:26PM +0100, Kjeld Flarup wrote:
>
>> I have a setup where I have a fallback to a GSM number
>>
>> I look up the GSM number and provider information in a database
and sets the
>> headers.
>>
>>    dlg_manage();
>>    $du = "sip:" + $dbr(ra=>[0,0]);
>>    $tu = "sip:"+$rU+"@"+$dbr(ra=>[0,0]);
>>    $ru = "sip:"+$rU+"@"+$dbr(ra=>[0,0]);
>> uac_replace_from("sip:"+$dbr(ra=>[0,1])+"@EXTERNALIP");
>>
>> After this the call goes to a failure_route to do uac_auth()
>>
>> Now my problem is that this works with the providers Asterisk
server.
>> But if the call is send to the providers Kamailio server,
authentication is
>> rejected.
>>
>> Removing uac_replace_from makes the call accepted on the
Kamailio server
>>
>> The only possible problem I can see is that the first INVITE
without
>> authentication, has correct From header.
>> But the second with the nonce and auth, uses the wrong From
header. Thus two
>> different From headers in the same SIP dialog.
>>
>> Unfortunately uac_replace_from is not allowed in failure_route,
so I could
>> test if this is the problem.
>>
>> Is the two different From headers a problem, and how could that
be fixed.
>>
>>
>> --
>>  Med Liberalistiske Hilsner
--
>>     Civilingeniør, Kjeld Flarup - Mit sind er mere åbent end
min tegnebog
>>     Sofienlundvej 6B, 7560 Hjerm, Tlf: 40 29 41 49
>>     Den ikke akademiske hjemmeside for liberalismen -
www.liberalismen.dk 
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
>> sr-users@lists.kamailio.org 
>> https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users

___
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users@lists.kamailio.org 
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users


___
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users@lists.kamailio.org
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
___
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users@lists.kamailio.org
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users

Re: [SR-Users] Dispatcher error with rtpptoxy

2020-01-23 Thread Henning Westerholt

Hello Guarav,

I did not get your problem completely from the e-mail. From the logs:

 9(21) ERROR: db_mysql [km_dbase.c:126]: db_mysql_submit_query(): driver error 
on query: Unknown column 'src_user' in 'field list' (1054)
 9(21) ERROR:  [db_query.c:243]: db_do_insert_cmd(): error while 
submitting query
 9(21) ERROR: acc [acc.c:477]: acc_db_request(): failed to insert into database

I think you are missing some database columns for accounting in your DB. Have a 
look to the default cfg (top) to see the alter table cmds.

2(14) ERROR: {1 2 INVITE EQEiv5Mjs-eV1OCGv6Potw..} rtpproxy [rtpproxy.c:2586]: 
force_rtp_proxy(): incorrect port 0 in reply from rtp proxy

I would suggest to do a SIP trace to debug this more.

Cheers,

Henning

--
Henning Westerholt – https://skalatan.de/blog/
Kamailio services – https://gilawa.com

From: sr-users  On Behalf Of Gaurav Bmotra
Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2020 2:31 PM
To: Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List 
Subject: [SR-Users] Dispatcher error with rtpptoxy

hi
i m using kamailio 5.2.1 in Kubernetese on Host network
it was working file but now the following issue i n getting

call connecting but audio both way issue
here is the logs that got


2(14) ERROR: {1 2 INVITE EQEiv5Mjs-eV1OCGv6Potw..} rtpproxy [rtpproxy.c:2586]: 
force_rtp_proxy(): incorrect port 0 in reply from rtp proxy
 4(16) ERROR: {2 2 INVITE EQEiv5Mjs-eV1OCGv6Potw..} rtpproxy [rtpproxy.c:2586]: 
force_rtp_proxy(): incorrect port 0 in reply from rtp proxy
 4(16) NOTICE: {2 2 INVITE EQEiv5Mjs-eV1OCGv6Potw..} acc [acc.c:279]: 
acc_log_request(): ACC: transaction answered: 
timestamp=1578636040;method=INVITE;from_tag=88c92018;to_tag=2c3c0a16;call_id=EQEiv5Mjs-eV1OCGv6Potw..;code=200;reason=OK;src_user=200;src_domain=testcalls.aone.one;src_ip=157.39.9.195;dst_ouser=300;dst_user=300;dst_domain=106.78.70.57
 4(16) ERROR: {2 2 INVITE EQEiv5Mjs-eV1OCGv6Potw..} db_mysql [km_dbase.c:126]: 
db_mysql_submit_query(): driver error on query: Unknown column 'src_user' in 
'field list' (1054)
 4(16) ERROR: {2 2 INVITE EQEiv5Mjs-eV1OCGv6Potw..}  [db_query.c:243]: 
db_do_insert_cmd(): error while submitting query
 4(16) ERROR: {2 2 INVITE EQEiv5Mjs-eV1OCGv6Potw..} acc [acc.c:477]: 
acc_db_request(): failed to insert into database
 6(18) ERROR: {2 2 INVITE EQEiv5Mjs-eV1OCGv6Potw..} rtpproxy [rtpproxy.c:2586]: 
force_rtp_proxy(): incorrect port 0 in reply from rtp proxy
 8(20) NOTICE: {2 3 BYE EQEiv5Mjs-eV1OCGv6Potw..} acc [acc.c:279]: 
acc_log_request(): ACC: transaction answered: 
timestamp=1578636041;method=BYE;from_tag=88c92018;to_tag=2c3c0a16;call_id=EQEiv5Mjs-eV1OCGv6Potw..;code=200;reason=OK;src_user=200;src_domain=testcalls.aone.one;src_ip=157.39.9.195;dst_ouser=300;dst_user=300;dst_domain=106.78.70.57
 8(20) ERROR: {2 3 BYE EQEiv5Mjs-eV1OCGv6Potw..} db_mysql [km_dbase.c:126]: 
db_mysql_submit_query(): driver error on query: Unknown column 'src_user' in 
'field list' (1054)
 8(20) ERROR: {2 3 BYE EQEiv5Mjs-eV1OCGv6Potw..}  [db_query.c:243]: 
db_do_insert_cmd(): error while submitting query
 8(20) ERROR: {2 3 BYE EQEiv5Mjs-eV1OCGv6Potw..} acc [acc.c:477]: 
acc_db_request(): failed to insert into database
 3(15) ERROR: {1 2 INVITE LH6sikNzpP9rXXMJvH20wQ..} rtpproxy [rtpproxy.c:2586]: 
force_rtp_proxy(): incorrect port 0 in reply from rtp proxy
 9(21) NOTICE: acc [acc.c:279]: acc_log_request(): ACC: call missed: 
timestamp=1578636141;method=INVITE;from_tag=6b032a77;to_tag=;call_id=LH6sikNzpP9rXXMJvH20wQ..;code=408;reason=Request
 
Timeout;src_user=200;src_domain=testcalls.aone.one;src_ip=157.39.9.195;dst_ouser=300;dst_user=300;dst_domain=106.78.70.57
 9(21) ERROR: db_mysql [km_dbase.c:126]: db_mysql_submit_query(): driver error 
on query: Unknown column 'src_user' in 'field list' (1054)
 9(21) ERROR:  [db_query.c:243]: db_do_insert_cmd(): error while 
submitting query
 9(21) ERROR: acc [acc.c:477]: acc_db_request(): failed to insert into database
 9(21) NOTICE: {1 2 INVITE LH6sikNzpP9rXXMJvH20wQ..}

Re: [SR-Users] ims_ipsec_pcscf mandatory for ims_registrar_pcscf ?

2020-01-23 Thread Henning Westerholt

Hello Hamid,

I need to investigate as well, maybe somebody else that uses this module can 
comment as well.

Cheers,

Henning

--
Henning Westerholt - https://skalatan.de/blog/
Kamailio services - https://gilawa.com

From: Hamid Hashmi 
Sent: Monday, January 6, 2020 10:11 AM
To: Henning Westerholt ; Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List 

Subject: Re: ims_ipsec_pcscf mandatory for ims_registrar_pcscf ?

Thanks, Henning

What if someone doesn't need ims_ipsec_pcscf. Isn't there any option to use 
ims_registrar_pcscf without ims_ipsec_pcacf?


Regards

Hamid R. Hashmi


From: Henning Westerholt mailto:h...@skalatan.de>>
Sent: Sunday, January 5, 2020 10:43 PM
To: Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List 
mailto:sr-users@lists.kamailio.org>>
Cc: Hamid Hashmi mailto:hamid2kv...@hotmail.com>>
Subject: RE: ims_ipsec_pcscf mandatory for ims_registrar_pcscf ?


Hello Hamid,



the documentation is probably outdated in this regards.



Please open an issue on our tracker about it, or even better - create a pull 
request that fixes the documentation.



Cheers,



Henning



--

Henning Westerholt - https://skalatan.de/blog/

Kamailio services - https://gilawa.com



From: sr-users 
mailto:sr-users-boun...@lists.kamailio.org>>
 On Behalf Of Hamid Hashmi
Sent: Friday, January 3, 2020 10:19 AM
To: sr-users@lists.kamailio.org
Subject: [SR-Users] ims_ipsec_pcscf mandatory for ims_registrar_pcscf ?



According to Module documentation ims_ipsec_pcscf is not mandatory



[cid:image001.png@01D5D219.CBCA3620]



but mod: ims_registrar_pcscf is giving error on ims_ipsec_pcscf.



Jan  3 02:19:09 CSCFNode2 [Proxy-CSCF][833]: DEBUG: ims_registrar_pcscf 
[ims_registrar_pcscf_mod.c:253]: mod_init(): Successfully bound to TM module

Jan  3 02:19:09 CSCFNode2 [Proxy-CSCF][833]: DEBUG:  
[core/sr_module.c:632]: find_mod_export_record(): found export of 
 in module ims_usrloc_pcscf 
[/opt/lib64/kamailio/modules/ims_usrloc_pcscf.so]

Jan  3 02:19:09 CSCFNode2 [Proxy-CSCF][833]: DEBUG: ims_registrar_pcscf 
[ims_registrar_pcscf_mod.c:264]: mod_init(): Successfully bound to PCSCF Usrloc 
module

Jan  3 02:19:09 CSCFNode2 [Proxy-CSCF][833]: DEBUG:  
[core/sr_module.c:638]: find_mod_export_record(): export of 
 not found (flags 0)

Jan  3 02:19:09 CSCFNode2 [Proxy-CSCF][833]: ERROR: ims_registrar_pcscf 
[ims_registrar_pcscf_mod.c:268]: mod_init(): can't bind ims_ipsec_pcscf

Jan  3 02:19:09 CSCFNode2 [Proxy-CSCF][833]: ERROR:  
[core/sr_module.c:849]: init_mod(): Error while initializing module 
ims_registrar_pcscf (/opt/lib64/kamailio/modules/ims_registrar_pcscf.so)

Jan  3 02:19:09 CSCFNode2 [Proxy-CSCF][833]: DEBUG: cdp_avp 
[cdp_avp_mod.c:225]: cdp_avp_destroy(): Destroying module cdp_avp

Jan  3 02:19:09 CSCFNode2 [Proxy-CSCF][833]: WARNING:  
[core/mem/q_malloc.c:487]: qm_free(): WARNING: free(0) called from cdp_avp: 
cdp_avp_mod.c: cdp_avp_destroy(226)

Jan  3 02:19:09 CSCFNode2 [Proxy-CSCF][833]: INFO: cdp [cdp_mod.c:255]: 
cdp_exit(): CDiameterPeer child stopping ...

Jan  3 02:19:09 CSCFNode2 [Proxy-CSCF][833]: INFO: cdp [cdp_mod.c:257]: 
cdp_exit(): ... CDiameterPeer child stopped

Jan  3 02:19:09 CSCFNode2 [Proxy-CSCF][833]: DEBUG: tcpops [tcpops_mod.c:156]: 
mod_destroy(): TCP keepalive module unloaded.

Jan  3 02:19:09 CSCFNode2 [Proxy-CSCF][833]: DEBUG: tm [t_funcs.c:84]: 
tm_shutdown(): start

Jan  3 02:19:09 CSCFNode2 [Proxy-CSCF][833]: DEBUG: tm [t_funcs.c:87]: 
tm_shutdown(): emptying hash table

Jan  3 02:19:09 CSCFNode2 [Proxy-CSCF][833]: DEBUG: tm [t_funcs.c:89]: 
tm_shutdown(): removing semaphores

Jan  3 02:19:09 CSCFNode2 [Proxy-CSCF][833]: DEBUG: tm [t_funcs.c:91]: 
tm_shutdown(): destroying tmcb lists

Jan  3 02:19:09 CSCFNode2 [Proxy-CSCF][833]: DEBUG: tm [t_funcs.c:94]: 
tm_shutdown(): done

Jan  3 02:19:09 CSCFNode2 [Proxy-CSCF][833]: INFO:  
[core/sctp_core.c:53]: sctp_core_destroy(): SCTP API not initialized

Jan  3 02:19:09 CSCFNode2 [Proxy-CSCF][833]: DEBUG:  
[core/mem/shm.c:288]: shm_destroy_manager(): destroying memory manager: q_malloc

Jan  3 02:19:09 CSCFNode2 [Proxy-CSCF][833]: DEBUG:  
[core/mem/q_malloc.c:1185]: qm_shm_lock_destroy(): destroying the shared memory 
lock

Jan  3 02:19:09 CSCFNode2 [Proxy-CSCF][833]: DEBUG:  [core/mem/pkg.c:97]: 
pkg_destroy_manager(): destroying memory manager: q_malloc



There is no option to use ims_registrar_pcscf without ims_ipsec_pcscf.

[cid:image002.png@01D5D219.CBCA3620]



Regards

Hamid R. Hashmi
___
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users@lists.kamailio.org
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users

Re: [SR-Users] rtpengine relay ip and port in avp

2020-01-23 Thread Yuriy Gorlichenko

Look here
https://www.kamailio.org/docs/modules/5.3.x/modules/rtpengine.html#rtpengine.p.write_sdp_pv

Then you will be able to get it with string operations.

On Thu, 23 Jan 2020, 14:25 Pafel,  wrote:

> My bad, I am using rtpengine module but not rtpproxy.
>
> Regards,
> Pavel
>
> На ср, 22.01.2020 г. в 18:41 Pafel  написа:
>
>> Hello,
>> I am using kamailio 5.3, rtproxy module and sipwise rtpengine. Is there
>> any way I can get the rewritten / relay address and port by the
>> rtpproxy/rtpengine. In avp or some other variable?
>> Regards,
>> Pavel Siderov
>>
> ___
> Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
> sr-users@lists.kamailio.org
> https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
>
___
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users@lists.kamailio.org
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users

Re: [SR-Users] rtpengine relay ip and port in avp

2020-01-23 Thread Pafel

My bad, I am using rtpengine module but not rtpproxy.

Regards,
Pavel

На ср, 22.01.2020 г. в 18:41 Pafel  написа:

> Hello,
> I am using kamailio 5.3, rtproxy module and sipwise rtpengine. Is there
> any way I can get the rewritten / relay address and port by the
> rtpproxy/rtpengine. In avp or some other variable?
> Regards,
> Pavel Siderov
>
___
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users@lists.kamailio.org
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users

Re: [SR-Users] Parallel forking and rtpengine handling

2020-01-23 Thread Sebastian Damm

Hi,

On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 8:29 PM Daniel-Constantin Mierla
 wrote:
> A remark for kamailio transaction states point of view: in failure route the 
> entire transaction is in failed state, so there is not active branch, so at 
> that point it should delete all (previous) rtpengine sessions/branches.

This is what I had in mind. I don't think I end up in failure route if
one branch is answered. My Question was, how to handle the canceled
branch.

> As I got it, the use of via-branch flag for deleting a session makes sense in 
> event route for branch-failure, when other branches can still be active or 
> one was answered.

Do branches that get cancelled due to another branch answering the
call go through the branch failure route?

> Also in the case of parallel forking, if via-branch is not give to rtpengine 
> offer command, does the 2nd (and the next) rtpengine offer command overwrite 
> the previous one, so the rtpengine keeps only the data from the last one?

We stumbled upon this problem only because we used rtpengine without
the branch parameter. And what we saw was that the second
rtpengine_offer overwrote the first one, making the first branch
impossible to be answered in certain scenarios.

Regards and thanks for all the answers so far.
Sebastian

-- 
Sebastian Damm
Voice Engineer
__
sipgate GmbH
Gladbacher Straße 74 | 40219 Düsseldorf

___
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users@lists.kamailio.org
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users

Re: [SR-Users] Ideas to reject a call due to RTPEngine failure when handling the 200Ok

Re: [SR-Users] Ideas to reject a call due to RTPEngine failure when handling the 200Ok

[SR-Users] Ideas to reject a call due to RTPEngine failure when handling the 200Ok

Re: [SR-Users] uac_replace_from and uac_auth fails to authenticate.

Re: [SR-Users] Dispatcher error with rtpptoxy

Re: [SR-Users] ims_ipsec_pcscf mandatory for ims_registrar_pcscf ?

Re: [SR-Users] rtpengine relay ip and port in avp

Re: [SR-Users] rtpengine relay ip and port in avp

Re: [SR-Users] Parallel forking and rtpengine handling

9 matches

Site Navigation

Mail list logo

Footer information