Re: [SR-Users] [tm-local-request] usage

2019-08-27 Thread Daniel-Constantin Mierla
Hello, On 26.08.19 18:26, Duarte Rocha wrote: > Greetings,  > > Does  "event_route[tm:local-request]" works like onsend route ? no, event_route[tm:local-request] is for requests initiated by Kamailio via tm module (but other modules can be the source of the requests, as they use internally tm

Re: [SR-Users] lookup(aliases) issues with 5.2

2019-08-27 Thread Daniel-Constantin Mierla
Hello, On 27.08.19 09:27, igor.potjevle...@gmail.com wrote: > > Hello! > >   > > Any help on that matter? Sounds like the domain parsing have been > updated. Is it possible to back on the previous mode? > did you mean backporting to older branches? If yes, it was done to branch 5.2, have you

Re: [SR-Users] [tm-local-request] usage

2019-08-27 Thread Daniel-Constantin Mierla
Hello, On 26.08.19 22:35, Henning Westerholt wrote: > > Hello Duarte, > > tm:local-request is (as the name says) a event route from tm. So this > will be only executed for locally generated requests from tm, but not > e.g. for requests generated with sl. > to avoid any misleading by the above

[SR-Users] Too many hops 483 - unable to setup call

2019-08-27 Thread Jack R
Hi, I installed Kamailio SIP server: Following article: https://github.com/open5gs/nextepc/blob/master/docs/_docs/guide/04-setting-up-kamailio-IMS.md By following step # 12 (as per above article) when we initiate the call we get - Too many hops 483 Created two user earlier: $ kamctl add test

[SR-Users] kamailio stop registering agents

2019-08-27 Thread Gaurav Bmotra
hi i m using kamailio 5.1,,, on ubuntu 18.4 installed form source after few days it stop registering client to kamailio it resolved after restart service ... same after few day loges - kamailio.service - LSB: Start the Kamailio SIP proxy server Loaded:

Re: [SR-Users] kamailio stop registering agents

2019-08-27 Thread David Villasmil
Can you provide with the log when users try to register and kamailio doesn’t answer? On Tue, 27 Aug 2019 at 12:40, Gaurav Bmotra wrote: > hi > i m using kamailio 5.1,,, on ubuntu 18.4 > installed form source > > after few days it stop registering client to kamailio it resolved > after

[SR-Users] RFC: about sl and tm local-response event routes

2019-08-27 Thread Daniel-Constantin Mierla
Hello, just discovered what I consider to be an inconsistency in naming and behaviour for event_route blocks for local-request and local-response and starting a discussion here to see how to move on. The event_route[tm:local-request] is executed before sending there local generated request out

Re: [SR-Users] lookup(aliases) issues with 5.2

2019-08-27 Thread igor.potjevlesch
Hello Daniel, Thank you for getting back to me. We will update with 5.2.4 and I'll let you know if it's solved. Regards, Igor. De : Daniel-Constantin Mierla Envoyé : mardi 27 août 2019 09:39 À : Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List ; igor.potjevle...@gmail.com Objet : Re:

[SR-Users] IMC module not sending messages to members of a conference room

2019-08-27 Thread da...@aslo.us
Hello everyone, I'm runing Kamailio 5.2.4 with enabled mysql, usrlocdb, presence, aliasdb, auth and NAT. I can register clients, establish calls and video calls, send IMs, etc. imc_rooms and imc_members tables were created when kamailio was installed. I've also checked imc-create.sql script and

[SR-Users] Kamailio stops processing requests over UDP

2019-08-27 Thread Juha Heinanen
I'm returning to an old issue, where Kamailio stops processing incoming requests. Now it turned out that only requests over UDP are not processed. Requests over TCP work fine. Debug log doesn't show anything about the requests over UDP, but wireshark sees them coming. core.ps shows that main

[SR-Users] Kamailio stops processing requests over UDP

2019-08-27 Thread Juha Heinanen
Juha Heinanen writes: > Any ideas what could cause Kamailio (5.2 version) to stop processing > requests over UDP? What additional info should I try to get? Is there some means to find out if a UDP receiver process is currently processing a request? Forgot to mention that after about 10 minutes

Re: [SR-Users] kamailio stop registering agents

2019-08-27 Thread Gaurav Bmotra
hi thank you for reply i think it is the issue due to memory it is using default values (-m 64 -M 8 ) can you plz hell me how to increase this i m tring to run this (kamailio -m 512 -M 8) , but it is not working still values same as default plz help thanks On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 4:21 PM

Re: [SR-Users] Define properly IP in record-route header

2019-08-27 Thread Sergiu Pojoga
Do you have: mhomed=1 ? On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 8:52 AM przeqpiciel wrote: > Thank you for the reply. It little help for me, Right now probably I have > to make logic which change record route depends on it where Kamailio send > packets internal / outside > > pon., 26 sie 2019 o 22:21 Alex

Re: [SR-Users] Define properly IP in record-route header

2019-08-27 Thread przeqpiciel
Thank you for the reply. It little help for me, Right now probably I have to make logic which change record route depends on it where Kamailio send packets internal / outside pon., 26 sie 2019 o 22:21 Alex Balashov napisał(a): > Hi, > > You may wish to have a look at the ‘advertise’ directive

Re: [SR-Users] Dispatcher - FQDN with multiple IPs

2019-08-27 Thread Sergiu Pojoga
May be I didn't provide sufficient details, so I'll elaborate. I'd like Kamailio to 'talk' to only known dispatcher gateways, so in the REQINIT route I do: route[REQINIT] { # Silently drop requests from unknown gateways, very strict mode if(!ds_is_from_list()) { xlog("L_ALERT","blocking $rm

Re: [SR-Users] RFC: about sl and tm local-response event routes

2019-08-27 Thread Federico Cabiddu
Hi Daniel, personally I have just one case of local-request, so it wouldn't hurt too much this change that brings consistency. Cheers, Federico On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 1:37 PM Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote: > Hello, > > just discovered what I consider to be an inconsistency in naming and >

Re: [SR-Users] Define properly IP in record-route header

2019-08-27 Thread przeqpiciel
Right now it works. I added additional network card to my virtual kamailio, then put this NIC to asterisks network also i configured multiple listen and mhomed=1 wt., 27 sie 2019 o 20:54 Alex Balashov napisał(a): > I can see the temptation, but that’s actually looking at it backwards. > > If

[SR-Users] Unexpected BYEs from dialog module

2019-08-27 Thread Alex Balashov
Hi, I am running 4.3.5:1b0c0a, which I am aware is an EOL'd release train, and have a problem with the dialog module I am baffled by. On many calls - I can't find any correlation to particular kinds of endpoints - I see spoofed BYEs come out of Kamailio after a minute and a half, as if the call

Re: [SR-Users] Dispatcher - FQDN with multiple IPs

2019-08-27 Thread David Villasmil
So basically what you need is to either resolve the fqdn for every received packet, or keep the resolved up somehow to check against when a packet arrives from downstream. On Tue, 27 Aug 2019 at 19:18, Henning Westerholt wrote: > Hello Sergiu, > > now its better understandable. Just looked

Re: [SR-Users] Define properly IP in record-route header

2019-08-27 Thread przeqpiciel
Nope, its broken again. I am probably too stupid for this. wt., 27 sie 2019 o 23:12 przeqpiciel napisał(a): > Right now it works. > I added additional network card to my virtual kamailio, then put this NIC > to asterisks network also i configured multiple listen and mhomed=1 > > wt., 27 sie

Re: [SR-Users] Define properly IP in record-route header

2019-08-27 Thread przeqpiciel
No, I hear about that first time. But I think i still need program that will rewrite record route depends if it goes to asterisk or to Internet wt., 27 sie 2019 o 15:44 Sergiu Pojoga napisał(a): > Do you have: mhomed=1 ? > > On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 8:52 AM przeqpiciel wrote: > >> Thank you for

Re: [SR-Users] Define properly IP in record-route header

2019-08-27 Thread Alex Balashov
I can see the temptation, but that’s actually looking at it backwards. If you have multiple listeners, e.g. listen=udp:x.x.x.x:5060 listen=udp:y.y.y.y:5060 or multiple listeners on the same interface with multiple ports, if it’s NAT’d AWS-style, e.g. listen=udp:x.x.x.x:5060

Re: [SR-Users] [sr-dev] RFC: about sl and tm local-response event routes

2019-08-27 Thread Victor Seva
On Tue, 27 Aug 2019, 13:39 Daniel-Constantin Mierla, wrote: > I am not sure how much used are the event routes for tm:local-response > and sl:local-response, I haven't seen any questions about them so far on > mailing lists, that's why I am asking here if would make sense to rename > them like

Re: [SR-Users] Kamailio stops processing requests over UDP

2019-08-27 Thread Joel Serrano
Hi Juha, Did you check to see if UDP packets (maybe?) are being queued at the network level before reaching K? You should be able to see that with netstat, not that this fixes the problem but might point in some direction... On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 9:29 AM Juha Heinanen wrote: > Juha

Re: [SR-Users] Kamailio stops processing requests over UDP

2019-08-27 Thread Juha Heinanen
Joel Serrano writes: > Did you check to see if UDP packets (maybe?) are being queued at the > network level before reaching K? Thanks for the tip. Will check next time ($ ss -4 -n -l | grep 5060). -- Juha ___ Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List

Re: [SR-Users] kamailio stop registering agents

2019-08-27 Thread Henning Westerholt
Hello Gaurav, can you check /lib/systemd/system/kamailio.service and see if it works if you change it there? Better would be then to change it with "sudo systemctl edit kamailio" - refer e.g. to:

Re: [SR-Users] Too many hops 483 - unable to setup call

2019-08-27 Thread Jack R
Finally, I uninstalled and reinstalled Kamailio and now SIP calls works fine. Thanks. On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 4:26 PM Jack R wrote: > Hi, > > I installed Kamailio SIP server: > Following article: > https://github.com/open5gs/nextepc/blob/master/docs/_docs/guide/04-setting-up-kamailio-IMS.md >

Re: [SR-Users] Dispatcher - FQDN with multiple IPs

2019-08-27 Thread Henning Westerholt
Hello Sergiu, now its better understandable. Just looked briefly to the code, the function works more or less like this: - it will take the URI and resolve it to an IP address - it will then compare this IP to the dispatcher nodes (depending on the mode to all or one group) So if there is a

Re: [SR-Users] RFC: about sl and tm local-response event routes

2019-08-27 Thread Henning Westerholt
Hi Daniel, sounds good to me, indeed more consistent. Cheers, Henning Am 27.08.19 um 13:36 schrieb Daniel-Constantin Mierla: > Hello, > > just discovered what I consider to be an inconsistency in naming and > behaviour for event_route blocks for local-request and local-response > and starting

Re: [SR-Users] [sr-dev] Failed to catch some reply message with reply_route block

2019-08-27 Thread Daniel-Constantin Mierla
Thanks Federico for looking into this and finding that. I guess that the issue is when sip_trace() is the last action in the reply_route, its return code being propagated to the interpreter. Using 'exit' after it or 'return 1' could be a variant, but as you said a proper fix should be done so

Re: [SR-Users] lookup(aliases) issues with 5.2

2019-08-27 Thread igor.potjevlesch
Hello! Any help on that matter? Sounds like the domain parsing have been updated. Is it possible to back on the previous mode? Regards, Igor. De : igor.potjevle...@gmail.com Envoyé : vendredi 23 août 2019 18:53 À : 'Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List' Objet : lookup(aliases)

Re: [SR-Users] RFC: about sl and tm local-response event routes

2019-08-27 Thread Daniel-Constantin Mierla
Hi Federico, local-request stays the same (that's rather used based on mailing list discussions). I proposed to change the local-response to local-response-sent (I don't remember any discussion about people using it, I checked the commit log and was added by Peter Dunkley several years ago, I

Re: [SR-Users] RFC: about sl and tm local-response event routes

2019-08-27 Thread Federico Cabiddu
Hi Daniel, yes, sorry I meant local-response! Cheers, Federico On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 4:19 PM Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote: > Hi Federico, > > local-request stays the same (that's rather used based on mailing list > discussions). > > I proposed to change the local-response to