date:20170825

Re: [SR-Users] lcr gws

2017-08-25 Thread Juha Heinanen

Logeshwaran G writes:

> But the issue is not fixed for the below one:
> 
> [root@zeodialer ~]# kamcmd lcr.dump_rules
> {
> lcr_id: 1
> rule_id: 1
> prefix: 91
> from_uri:
> request_uri:
> stopper: 1
> }
> {
> gw_index: 1
> priority: 1
> weight: 1
> }
> {
> lcr_id: 1
> rule_id: 4
> prefix: 00091
> from_uri:
> request_uri:
> stopper: 1
> }
> {
> gw_index: 1
> priority: 1
> weight: 1
> }
> 
> 
> 
> *52**Why these two numbers are 5 and 2 are displaying in the output?

What do you mean by 5 and 2?  I don't see those in the above.

-- Juha

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

Re: [SR-Users] lcr gws

2017-08-25 Thread Logeshwaran G

Yes I gave the kamcmd lcr.reload command everytime .

Issue is resolved once I have added the below modparam in cfg.

modparam("lcr", "lcr_count", 10).


But the issue is not fixed for the below one:

[root@zeodialer ~]# kamcmd lcr.dump_rules
{
lcr_id: 1
rule_id: 1
prefix: 91
from_uri:
request_uri:
stopper: 1
}
{
gw_index: 1
priority: 1
weight: 1
}
{
lcr_id: 1
rule_id: 4
prefix: 00091
from_uri:
request_uri:
stopper: 1
}
{
gw_index: 1
priority: 1
weight: 1
}



*52**Why these two numbers are 5 and 2 are displaying in the output?
Did I need to change something?*



Thanks & Kind Regards,
Logeshwaran G

On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 4:17 PM, Juha Heinanen  wrote:

> Logeshwaran G writes:
>
> > I am having two lcr gateways in lcr_gw table.
>
> Check if you called lcr.reload after adding the other gw to lcr_gw table.
>
> -- Juha
>
> ___
> 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] Handeling Proxy Cancel event

2017-08-25 Thread Sebastian Damm

Hi,

On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 10:28 AM, Mikko Lehto  wrote:
> Maybe t_is_canceled() works for your scenario:

Without having tested this, I would expect, that the transaction is
not cancelled but answered.

You might be able to catch it with t_on_branch_failure:
https://www.kamailio.org/docs/modules/devel/modules/tm.html#tm.f.t_on_branch_failure

Maybe those cancels go through there, too, and if you set an AVP when
getting the 200 OK on another branch, you could use those two
informations to get what you need.

Sebastian

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

Re: [SR-Users] One Kamailio and many RTPENGINEs

2017-08-25 Thread Arsen

set_rtpengine_set("1", "2");
rtpengine_manage();

A second set ID can be specified to daisy-chain two RTP proxies.



On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 1:33 PM, Igor Olhovskiy 
wrote:

> So, it should be like this?
>
> …
> set_rtpengine_set(«1»);
> rtpproxy_manage()
>
> set_rtpengine_set(«2»);
> rtpproxy_manage()
> …
> ?
> Means 2 times call rtpproxy_manage() with different sets?
>
> Regards, Igor
>
> On 25 авг. 2017 г., 12:41 +0300, Alex Balashov ,
> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 11:38:40AM +0200, Denys Pozniak wrote:
>
> So the main question: Can one Kamailio build "call" between two
> RTPENGINEs ?
>
>
> Yep.
>
> --
> Alex Balashov | Principal | Evariste Systems LLC
>
> Tel: +1-706-510-6800 <(706)%20510-6800> / +1-800-250-5920
> <(800)%20250-5920> (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
>
>


-- 
Regards,

Arsen Semionov
Eurolan.info
cell: +442035198881
___
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users@lists.kamailio.org
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users

Re: [SR-Users] lcr gws

2017-08-25 Thread Logeshwaran G

This is my lcr_gw table:

MariaDB [kamailio]> select * from lcr_gw;
+++--++--+--+++---+---++--+---+-++---+-++--+
| id | lcr_id | gw_name  | ip_addr| hostname | port | params |
uri_scheme | transport | strip | prefix | tag  | flags | defunct | status |
createdBy | createdDate | modifiedBy | modifiedDate |
+++--++--+--+++---+---++--+---+-++---+-++--+
|  1 |  1 | Carrier1 | 1.2.3.4 | NULL | 5060 | NULL   |  1
| 1 | 0 | NULL   | NULL | 1 |NULL |  1 |  NULL
| NULL|   NULL | NULL |
|  3 |  2 | Carrier2 | 4.3.2.1   | NULL | 5060 | NULL   |
1 | 1 | 0 | NULL   | NULL | 1 |NULL |  0 |
NULL | NULL|   NULL | NULL |
+++--++--+--+++---+---++--+---+-++---+-++--+




Thanks & Kind Regards,
Logeshwaran G

On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 3:37 PM, Logeshwaran G 
wrote:

> Also I am not sure about the below output as well:
>
> [root@zeodialer ~]# kamcmd lcr.dump_rules
> {
> lcr_id: 1
> rule_id: 1
> prefix: 91
> from_uri:
> request_uri:
> stopper: 1
> }
> {
> gw_index: 1
> priority: 1
> weight: 1
> }
> {
> lcr_id: 1
> rule_id: 4
> prefix: 00091
> from_uri:
> request_uri:
> stopper: 1
> }
> {
> gw_index: 1
> priority: 1
> weight: 1
> }
>
>
>
> *52*
>
> *Why these two numbers are 5 and 2 are displaying in the output? Did I
> need to change something?*
>
> Thanks & Kind Regards,
> Logeshwaran G
>
> On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 3:30 PM, Logeshwaran G 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am having two lcr gateways in lcr_gw table.
>>
>> But When executing the "kamcmd lcr.dump_gws", Its showing only one
>> gateway list:
>>
>> [root@zeodialer ~]# kamcmd lcr.dump_gws
>> {
>> lcr_id: 1
>> gw_id: 1
>> gw_index: 1
>> gw_name: Carrier1
>> scheme: sip:
>> ip_addr: 104.251.178.29
>> hostname:
>> port: 5060
>> params:
>> transport: ;transport=udp
>> strip: 0
>> prefix:
>> tag:
>> flags: 1
>> state: 0
>> defunct_until: 0
>> }
>>
>> Did I missing something?
>>
>> Thanks & Kind Regards,
>> Logeshwaran G
>>
>
>
___
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users@lists.kamailio.org
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users

Re: [SR-Users] lcr gws

2017-08-25 Thread Logeshwaran G

Also I am not sure about the below output as well:

[root@zeodialer ~]# kamcmd lcr.dump_rules
{
lcr_id: 1
rule_id: 1
prefix: 91
from_uri:
request_uri:
stopper: 1
}
{
gw_index: 1
priority: 1
weight: 1
}
{
lcr_id: 1
rule_id: 4
prefix: 00091
from_uri:
request_uri:
stopper: 1
}
{
gw_index: 1
priority: 1
weight: 1
}



*52*

*Why these two numbers are 5 and 2 are displaying in the output? Did I need
to change something?*

Thanks & Kind Regards,
Logeshwaran G

On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 3:30 PM, Logeshwaran G 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I am having two lcr gateways in lcr_gw table.
>
> But When executing the "kamcmd lcr.dump_gws", Its showing only one gateway
> list:
>
> [root@zeodialer ~]# kamcmd lcr.dump_gws
> {
> lcr_id: 1
> gw_id: 1
> gw_index: 1
> gw_name: Carrier1
> scheme: sip:
> ip_addr: 104.251.178.29
> hostname:
> port: 5060
> params:
> transport: ;transport=udp
> strip: 0
> prefix:
> tag:
> flags: 1
> state: 0
> defunct_until: 0
> }
>
> Did I missing something?
>
> Thanks & Kind Regards,
> Logeshwaran G
>
___
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users@lists.kamailio.org
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users

[SR-Users] lcr gws

2017-08-25 Thread Logeshwaran G

Hi,

I am having two lcr gateways in lcr_gw table.

But When executing the "kamcmd lcr.dump_gws", Its showing only one gateway
list:

[root@zeodialer ~]# kamcmd lcr.dump_gws
{
lcr_id: 1
gw_id: 1
gw_index: 1
gw_name: Carrier1
scheme: sip:
ip_addr: 104.251.178.29
hostname:
port: 5060
params:
transport: ;transport=udp
strip: 0
prefix:
tag:
flags: 1
state: 0
defunct_until: 0
}

Did I missing something?

Thanks & Kind Regards,
Logeshwaran G
___
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users@lists.kamailio.org
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users

Re: [SR-Users] Problem implementing usrloc via dmq

2017-08-25 Thread Charles Chance

Hello,

Which version of Kamailio?

What is the output of 'kamcmd dmq.list_nodes'?

Cheers,

Charles


On 24 August 2017 at 11:02, Aleksandar Sosic  wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> we're trying to make work usrloc over dmq without a db on our nodes.
>
> Our `kamailio.cfg` code to make it work on the nodes is like this:
> ```
> ...
> loadmodule "usrloc.so"
> ...
> loadmodule "dmq.so"
> loadmodule "dmq_usrloc.so"
> ...
> modparam("dmq", "server_address", DMQ_ADDRESS)
> modparam("dmq", "notification_address", "sip:routers.ourcloud.com:5060")
> modparam("dmq", "multi_notify", 1)
> modparam("dmq", "num_workers", 4)
> modparam("dmq_usrloc", "enable", 1)
> modparam("dmq_usrloc", "sync", 1)
> ```
>
> Where `DMQ_ADDRESS="sip::5060"` is the public IP address
> of the running node.
>
> `nslookup` of  `routers.ourcloud.com`:
> ```➜  ~ nslookup routers.ourcloud.com
> Server:8.8.8.8
> Address:8.8.8.8#53
>
> Non-authoritative answer:
> Name:rrouters.ourcloud.com
> Address: 
> Name:routers.ourcloud.com
> Address: 
> ```
> and obviously IP1 and IP2 are pubblic IPs of kamailio nodes that
> respond to my pings.
>
> When i register a client to node IP1 it's ul dump is:
> ```
> {
>"jsonrpc": "2.0",
>"result": {
>   "Domain": "location",
>   "Size": 1024,
>   "AoRs": [{
>  "Info": {
> "AoR": "0409828030",
> "HashID": 1970914268,
> "Contacts": [{
>"Contact": {
>   "Address": "sip:0409828030@172.19.0.255:56328;ob",
>   "Expires": 289,
>   "Q": -1,
>   "Call-ID": "5mclwiX4oYAVK0z-iT7M0p9RBX5-02g6",
>   "CSeq": 59427,
>   "User-Agent": "Telephone 1.2.6",
>   "Received": "sip::5060",
>   "Path": "[not set]",
>   "State": "CS_NEW",
>   "Flags": 0,
>   "CFlags": 192,
>   "Socket": "udp::5060",
>   "Methods": 8159,
>   "Ruid": "uloc-599d8fa8-f-1",
>   "Instance": "[not set]",
>   "Reg-Id": 0,
>   "Last-Keepalive": 1503498176,
>   "Last-Modified": 1503498176
>}
>  }]
>   }
>}],
>"Stats": {
>   "Records": 1,
>   "Max-Slots": 1
>}
> },
> "id": 1
> }
> ```
>
> On node with IP2 the ul dump is:
> ```
> {
>"jsonrpc": "2.0",
>"result": {
>   "Domain": "location",
>   "Size": 1024,
>   "AoRs": [],
>   "Stats": {
>  "Records": 0,
>  "Max-Slots": 0
>   }
>},
>"id": 1
> }
> ```
> What are we doing wrong? Are we missing something?
> --
> Aleksandar Sosic
> mail: alex.so...@timenet.it
> skype: alex.sosic
> cell: +385 91 2505 146
>
> ___
> Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
> sr-users@lists.kamailio.org
> https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
>



-- 
*Charles Chance*
Managing Director

t. 0330 120 1200m. 07932 063 891

-- 
Sipcentric Ltd. Company registered in England & Wales no. 7365592. Registered 
office: Faraday Wharf, Innovation Birmingham Campus, Holt Street, 
Birmingham Science Park, Birmingham B7 4BB.
___
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users@lists.kamailio.org
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users

Re: [SR-Users] One Kamailio and many RTPENGINEs

2017-08-25 Thread Alex Balashov

On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 11:38:40AM +0200, Denys Pozniak wrote:

> So the main question: Can one Kamailio build "call" between two
> RTPENGINEs ?

Yep.

-- 
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

Re: [SR-Users] Kamailio fails to process ACK to 487 from Cisco-SIPGateway/IOS-12.x?

2017-08-25 Thread Daniel-Constantin Mierla

The peer exposing the issue seems to be a pre-REF3261 implementation (no
branch parameter in Via header). Can you also show the invite sent by
the peer?

Cheers,
Daniel

On 23.08.17 16:17, George Diamantopoulos wrote:
> A clarification:
>
> The two exchanges-examples I included in the original message are not
> from the same peer. The issue is reproducible every time with the
> problematic peer (first example). I only included another exchange
> from a different peer (so it should read peer2 where I censored IP
> addressed) for comparison and to prove a point.
>
> On 23 August 2017 at 17:13, George Diamantopoulos
> > wrote:
>
> Hello all,
>
> I'm having a weird issue with Kamailio failing to properly process
> an ACK received to a 487 it sent, resulting in retransmissions of
> the 487. I assume it's because it can't match the ACK to the
> transaction, but I could be wrong.
>
> I'm using a modified version of the default configuration, so ACKs
> should be handled correctly. I haven't editted the WITHINDLG route
> in any way that would affect this (or at least I think).
>
> In addition, ACKs to 487 from other UAs are processed correctly,
> and these transactions are handled by the same routes in kamailio
> configuration as the problematic one, so I'm inclined to believe
> it's UA-specific?
>
> Here's an example transaction of the failed kind (results in
> kamailio retransmitting the 487):
>
> myself:5060 -> peer:5060
> -
> SIP/2.0 487 Request Terminated
> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP peer:5060
> From: sip:user@peer>;tag=116B5368-24D8
> To: sip:tel@myself>;tag=as655f6372
> Call-ID: 84DC69F2-873811E7-8A639B5A-3D9194E8@peer
> CSeq: 101 INVITE
> Server: modCOM v2 SIP Server
> Allow: INVITE, ACK, CANCEL, OPTIONS, BYE, REFER, SUBSCRIBE,
> NOTIFY, INFO, PUBLISH, MESSAGE
> Supported: replaces, timer
> Content-Length: 0
>
> peer:49590 -> myself:5060
> -
> ACK sip:tel@myself:5060 SIP/2.0
> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP  peer:5060
> From: sip:user@peer>;tag=116B5368-24D8
> To: sip:tel@myself>;tag=as655f6372
> Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2017 12:50:47 GMT
> Call-ID: 84DC69F2-873811E7-8A639B5A-3D9194E8@peer
> Max-Forwards: 10
> Content-Length: 0
> CSeq: 101 ACK
>
> And here's another similar transaction which is successful (no
> retransmissions):
>
> myself:5060 -> peer:5060
> 
> SIP/2.0 487 Request Terminated
> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP peer:5060;branch=z9hG4bKjbmvq4009gthskk0a6s1.1
> From:
> ;tag=599D7495-9ACE9E3-0A324A05
> To: ;tag=as65375e5d
> Call-ID: 599D7495-007A5832@fath3pcu238
> CSeq: 1 INVITE
> Server: modCOM v2 SIP Server
> Allow: INVITE, ACK, CANCEL, OPTIONS, BYE, REFER, SUBSCRIBE,
> NOTIFY, INFO, PUBLISH, MESSAGE
> Supported: replaces, timer
> Content-Length: 0
>
>
> peer:5060 -> myself:5060
> 
> ACK sip:tel@myself:5060;user=phone SIP/2.0
> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP peer:5060;branch=z9hG4bKjbmvq4009gthskk0a6s1.1
> From:
> ;tag=599D7495-9ACE9E3-0A324A05
> To: ;tag=as65375e5d
>
> Call-ID: 599D7495-007A5832@fath3pcu238
> Max-Forwards: 69
> Content-Length: 0
> CSeq: 1 ACK
>
> I can't pinpoint anything wrong with the first exchange, other
> than the fact that for some reason, the "less than" (<) sign in
> the from and to URIs is escaped as  in homer's GUI (which also
> breaks CSS rendering in Firefox, I had to clear this code out).
> However, these escaping characters are not visible with sngrep
> when capturing traffic normally, and neither when doing a select
> in homer's database directly, so I guess it's a rendering bug in
> homer-ui and can be ignored (unless someone has reason to believe
> otherwise).
>
> Now the relevant portion of the debug log is:
>
> Aug 23 16:47:12 modcom-sbc-1 kamailio[9750]: {1 101 ACK
> 64AA4E6C-874011E7-9A729B5A-3D9194E8@peer}  7(9760) exec: ***
> cfgtrace:request_route=[WITHINDLG] c=[/etc/kamailio/kamailio.cfg]
> l=223 a=24 n=t_check_trans
> Aug 23 16:47:12 modcom-sbc-1 kamailio[9750]: {1 101 ACK
> 64AA4E6C-874011E7-9A729B5A-3D9194E8@peer}  7(9760) DEBUG: tm
> [t_lookup.c:1001]: t_check_msg(): msg id=104 global id=103 T
> start=(nil)
> Aug 23 16:47:12 modcom-sbc-1 kamailio[9750]: {1 101 ACK
> 64AA4E6C-874011E7-9A729B5A-3D9194E8@peer}  7(9760) DEBUG: tm
> [t_lookup.c:459]: t_lookup_request(): start searching: hash=54992,
> isACK=1
> Aug 23 16:47:12 modcom-sbc-1 kamailio[9750]: {1 101 ACK
> 64AA4E6C-874011E7-9A729B5A-3D9194E8@peer}  7(9760) DEBUG: tm
> [t_lookup.c:494]:

Re: [SR-Users] Handeling Proxy Cancel event

2017-08-25 Thread Abdul Basit

Hi Sebastian,

Thank you for your reply.
I have handled CANCEL in case of 408 in failure route as you suggested.
This part has been done.

However, for proxy generated CANCEL, i need to intimate that call was
answered else where and have to add this event in custom event logs.
I am receiving 487 in onreply-route but its true for all types of CANCELs.
If i know the CANCEL type, i can log EDR (events detail records).

I am trying to look around for event_route but no success yet.

event_route [tm:local-request] { # Handle locally generated requests
  xlog("L_INFO", "Routing locally generated $rm to <$ru>\n");}


--
regards,

abdul basit

On 25 August 2017 at 01:28, Sebastian Damm  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 10:05 PM, Abdul Basit 
> wrote:
> > I am trying to capture and distinguish two types of cancels generated by
> > kamailio.
> > 1- Cancel when Invite timeout 408
>
> You can catch this one in failure route. Whenever an INVITE times out
> and you have set t_on_failure(someroute) before, you end up in the
> failure route named someroute.
>
> > 2- Cancel generated when call lands on multiple devices and any one of
> them
> > answer the call.
>
> I don't know whether those actually run through any route.
>
> > How can I capture and isolate these proxy generated CANCEL events?
>
> What's the purpose of distinguishing those two CANCELs?
>
> Regards
> Sebastian
>
> ___
> 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

[SR-Users] presence_xml mod_init(): Can't bind xcap_client

2017-08-25 Thread Borislav Gergov

*Hi I have presence_xml parameter force_active set to 1 and still i get
**error** presence_xml:mod_init: Can't bind xcap_client*


*kamailio 5.1.0-dev6 (x86_64/linux) *
___
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users@lists.kamailio.org
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users

[SR-Users] Problem implementing usrloc via dmq

2017-08-25 Thread Aleksandar Sosic

Hi everyone,

we're trying to make work usrloc over dmq without a db on our nodes.

Our `kamailio.cfg` code to make it work on the nodes is like this:
```
...
loadmodule "usrloc.so"
...
loadmodule "dmq.so"
loadmodule "dmq_usrloc.so"
...
modparam("dmq", "server_address", DMQ_ADDRESS)
modparam("dmq", "notification_address", "sip:routers.ourcloud.com:5060")
modparam("dmq", "multi_notify", 1)
modparam("dmq", "num_workers", 4)
modparam("dmq_usrloc", "enable", 1)
modparam("dmq_usrloc", "sync", 1)
```

Where `DMQ_ADDRESS="sip::5060"` is the public IP address
of the running node.

`nslookup` of  `routers.ourcloud.com`:
```➜  ~ nslookup routers.ourcloud.com
Server:8.8.8.8
Address:8.8.8.8#53

Non-authoritative answer:
Name:rrouters.ourcloud.com
Address: 
Name:routers.ourcloud.com
Address: 
```
and obviously IP1 and IP2 are pubblic IPs of kamailio nodes that
respond to my pings.

When i register a client to node IP1 it's ul dump is:
```
{
   "jsonrpc": "2.0",
   "result": {
  "Domain": "location",
  "Size": 1024,
  "AoRs": [{
 "Info": {
"AoR": "0409828030",
"HashID": 1970914268,
"Contacts": [{
   "Contact": {
  "Address": "sip:0409828030@172.19.0.255:56328;ob",
  "Expires": 289,
  "Q": -1,
  "Call-ID": "5mclwiX4oYAVK0z-iT7M0p9RBX5-02g6",
  "CSeq": 59427,
  "User-Agent": "Telephone 1.2.6",
  "Received": "sip::5060",
  "Path": "[not set]",
  "State": "CS_NEW",
  "Flags": 0,
  "CFlags": 192,
  "Socket": "udp::5060",
  "Methods": 8159,
  "Ruid": "uloc-599d8fa8-f-1",
  "Instance": "[not set]",
  "Reg-Id": 0,
  "Last-Keepalive": 1503498176,
  "Last-Modified": 1503498176
   }
 }]
  }
   }],
   "Stats": {
  "Records": 1,
  "Max-Slots": 1
   }
},
"id": 1
}
```

On node with IP2 the ul dump is:
```
{
   "jsonrpc": "2.0",
   "result": {
  "Domain": "location",
  "Size": 1024,
  "AoRs": [],
  "Stats": {
 "Records": 0,
 "Max-Slots": 0
  }
   },
   "id": 1
}
```
What are we doing wrong? Are we missing something?
--
Aleksandar Sosic
mail: alex.so...@timenet.it
skype: alex.sosic
cell: +385 91 2505 146

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

Re: [SR-Users] lcr gws

Re: [SR-Users] lcr gws

Re: [SR-Users] Handeling Proxy Cancel event

Re: [SR-Users] One Kamailio and many RTPENGINEs

Re: [SR-Users] lcr gws

Re: [SR-Users] lcr gws

[SR-Users] lcr gws

Re: [SR-Users] Problem implementing usrloc via dmq

Re: [SR-Users] One Kamailio and many RTPENGINEs

Re: [SR-Users] Kamailio fails to process ACK to 487 from Cisco-SIPGateway/IOS-12.x?

Re: [SR-Users] Handeling Proxy Cancel event

[SR-Users] presence_xml mod_init(): Can't bind xcap_client

[SR-Users] Problem implementing usrloc via dmq

13 matches

Site Navigation

Mail list logo

Footer information