[SR-Users] Encapsulate and de-encapsulate SIP traffic

I have a need to encapsulate SIP traffic depending on destination and obviously de-encapsulate traffic incoming from those destinations. The approach to dealing with outbound SIP traffic seems pretty straight forward, I create an appropriate routing block that determines if I need to encap the S

Re: [SR-Users] kamailio with kannel

Hi, My guess is that the strings are not being properly passed as multibyte/UTF-16 to the API, since, as far as I know, Kamailio has no native accommodation for wide characters in its internal string handling, e.g. for modparam and inside-the-config string literal purposes. Your best bet is to se

[SR-Users] kamailio with kannel

hello dears , i'm trying to use "http_client" module to post SMS from kamailio to kannel using the following configuration : ... modparam("http_client", "httpcon", "kannel=>http://username:password@127.0.0.1:443";) .. . http_connect("kannel","cgi-bin/sendsms?user=userna

Re: [SR-Users] Using Kamailio+rtproxy with freeswitch

Are you using the default Kamailio conf? If so, it will do a NAT test to see if it should trigger the RTP proxy Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 2, 2018, at 4:01 PM, Philippe,Edson H wrote: > > Hello. > I have been trying to use kamailio+rtpproxy to handle freeswitch. So far, > I am able to

Re: [SR-Users] Understanding 5XX stats in Kamailio

Hi Daniel, When there are multiple metrics for one type of reply, for example: core-rcv_replies_401 core-rcv_replies_404 core-rcv_replies_407 core-rcv_replies_480 core-rcv_replies_486 core-rcv_replies_4xx Would a 404 reply count towards ONLY to the more exact metric ( core-rcv_replies_401) or t

[SR-Users] Using Kamailio+rtproxy with freeswitch

Hello. I have been trying to use kamailio+rtpproxy to handle freeswitch. So far, I am able to handle the sip routing via Kamailio, however, I am not able to get the RTP portion to go through my kamailio server. it seems once Kamailio handle the initial sip, there is a 1 to 1 communication b

Re: [SR-Users] subst query

it is subst('/ ^From:(.*)\[2008:abcd:1234:2260:208:5dff:fe93:5b65\](.*)>(.*)/From:\1\[2008:abcd:1234:2260:20c:29ff:fe9a:b9cb\]>\3 /ig'); Thank you! On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 7:52 PM John Petrini wrote: > Your first group is matching From: > but it looks like you want it to only match the brac

Re: [SR-Users] subst query

Your first group is matching From: (.*)/From:\1[2008:abcd:1234:2260:20c:29ff:fe9a:b9cb]>\3/ig'); John Petrini Platforms Engineer [image: Call CoreDial] 215.297.4400 x 232 <215-297-4400> [image: Call CoreDial] www.coredial.com [image: CoreDial] 751 Arbor Way, Hillcrest I,

[SR-Users] Video call recording and mobile push notifications

Hi, I would like to setup up my SIP server / PBX for my business, now we have some candidates: 1. Open source solution: - Asterisk PBX, - Freeswitch PBX - Kamailio -OpenSIPS 2. Business solution: - Brekeke PBX(https://www.brekeke.com - Vodia PBX(https://www.

Re: [SR-Users] subst query

Thanks John for the Reply. So if i understand properly : group 1 is here ;tag=42006C96_nab__isp__cco__igo__mgt_8092 subst('/^From:(.*)[2008:abcd:1234:2260:208:5dff:fe93:5b65](.*)>(.*)/From:\1[2008:abcd:1234:2260:20c:29ff:fe9a:b9cb]>\3/ig'); Output : From: ;tag=42006

Re: [SR-Users] subst query

They are references to groups in the regex match. The groups are in parenthesis. Whatever is matched by group 1 and 3 will be included in the substitution. https://regexr.com/ and https://regex101.com/ are both good sites for building and explaining regexes. ___

Re: [SR-Users] DMQ problems

Hi Aleksandar, On 1 July 2018 at 07:08, Aleksandar Sosic wrote: > Hi everyone, > > so adding some xlogs We've managed to find out what's happening. > The request route was using: > ``` > if(is_method("KDMQ")){ > ``` > but this if was never triggered(!?) > We changed that to > ``` > if($rm =

[SR-Users] subst query

Hi , Can someone explain me what is \1 and \3 doing in the subst expression ? Input:From: ;tag=41008079_nab__isp__cco__igo__mgt_78DD subst('/^From:(.*)10.211.160.168(.*)>(.*)/From:\110.211.160.174>\3/ig'); Output : From: ;tag=41

Re: [SR-Users] Should I ignore Route header in ACK?

Thx Alex Finally I clarified question for myself UAC not ignores Route in case of direct connection to provider It sends to needed ip:port on the transport:network layers So provider wrong in case that avaits ACK at the different port than Route. THx all .For now all clear. 2018-07-02 11:24 GMT

Re: [SR-Users] Should I ignore Route header in ACK?

Jut in update In kamailio case all goes well Kamailio sets to UAC Record-Route in the 200 reply and then UAC sends ACK via Route sent... I totally confised... In both examples from my provider 200 contains Route set but in case of kamailio UAC uses route and in case of provider it uses Contact...

Re: [SR-Users] Is it possible to play earlmedia with kamailio

hi any one please help me regarding this. Thank you vinod,M.N On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 12:18 PM, vinod mn wrote: > Hi, > I am trying to configure kamailio to play early media and i am using > rtpproxy_stream2uac(), but the audio file plays only after the call is > connected. > > How to use rtp

Re: [SR-Users] Should I ignore Route header in ACK?

Anyway thank you so much for your responses I really appreciate your time and your help here 2018-07-02 10:42 GMT+03:00 Yuriy Gorlichenko : > Yep this clear for me from the start. > > For me for now not clear question abot direct connect for now. > > 2018-07-02 10:00 GMT+03:00 Alex Balashov : >

Re: [SR-Users] Should I ignore Route header in ACK?

Yep this clear for me from the start. For me for now not clear question abot direct connect for now. 2018-07-02 10:00 GMT+03:00 Alex Balashov : > On Mon, Jul 02, 2018 at 09:59:12AM +0300, Yuriy Gorlichenko wrote: > > > That was my point also... > > But they sent me lint to rfc3261 12.1.2 and th

Re: [SR-Users] Should I ignore Route header in ACK?

On Mon, Jul 02, 2018 at 09:59:12AM +0300, Yuriy Gorlichenko wrote: > That was my point also... > But they sent me lint to rfc3261 12.1.2 and that confused me > > So just for resume: > > So am I right if I say that in case If provider receives INVITE with > Record-Route from my side (myProxy) > P

Re: [SR-Users] Should I ignore Route header in ACK?

That was my point also... But they sent me lint to rfc3261 12.1.2 and that confused me So just for resume: So am I right if I say that in case If provider receives INVITE with Record-Route from my side (myProxy) Provider should care about it's own Record-Route and it should have uri where myProxy